http://www.youngfreemaine.com/soundoff/#!/entry/247326
What if everyone expressed themselves this way?
I really think we need more music like this in the world so I encourage you to go and vote for this girl so she can record some new stuff.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
H is for Hello
It's all changed again. Those of you following my blog will notice that I've basically gone the entire month of February without posting anything new.
I immersed myself in news and global affairs and was appalled by what I read. I've actually been through a spell of emotional depression as a result - similar to when I read "Shake Hands With the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda".
So now I'm choosing another route.
Human rights begins HERE.
How often do we say hello? A few dozen times a day maybe?
But how often do we say hello to someone new? Would you say hello to a total stranger if they were in tears? Do you say hello to your bus driver or the postman if you see him?
This isn't even about human rights, it's about being human by treating as human those that cross our paths.
And this is most especially important, I think, when...
H is for Help.
Human beings need help. And often that help comes in a form that we didn't even know we were looking for. Sometimes it's as simple as a brief conversation with someone, even a total stranger. I know this because I've spent most of the last month working in a small office doing data entry, only rarely seeing or speaking to any of the people I work with.
H is for Human.
We are human. And so is the man that removes the rubbish, the woman who drives the bus.
Smile and say hello. You might just make their day.
I immersed myself in news and global affairs and was appalled by what I read. I've actually been through a spell of emotional depression as a result - similar to when I read "Shake Hands With the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda".
So now I'm choosing another route.
Human rights begins HERE.
How often do we say hello? A few dozen times a day maybe?
But how often do we say hello to someone new? Would you say hello to a total stranger if they were in tears? Do you say hello to your bus driver or the postman if you see him?
This isn't even about human rights, it's about being human by treating as human those that cross our paths.
And this is most especially important, I think, when...
H is for Help.
Human beings need help. And often that help comes in a form that we didn't even know we were looking for. Sometimes it's as simple as a brief conversation with someone, even a total stranger. I know this because I've spent most of the last month working in a small office doing data entry, only rarely seeing or speaking to any of the people I work with.
H is for Human.
We are human. And so is the man that removes the rubbish, the woman who drives the bus.
Smile and say hello. You might just make their day.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
G is for Greed
Unlike the last few posts, this one is just going to be an idea with very little explanation (where before I've taken a few 'disparate' strands and woven them together to form something like a cohesive whole.
First thing's first: if you haven't seen the film 'Instinct' with Anthony Hopkins and Cuba Gooding Jr, go watch it. NOW!
Alright, alright, the main reason I've said do that is because of one word that Hopkins' character, Ethan Powell, uses: TAKERS.
Just after watching a few clips of 'Instinct', for the first time in years, I had this sudden revelation.
That's what we are, all of us. Us in our comfy, coseted, western civilisation. We represent an entire race of people that don't build, or give anything. WE ONLY TAKE.
I've been continuing to read 'Rhodesia: Last Outpost of the British Empire' and in reading about the days of that part of Africa that is now Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia), I hit upon this little piece of truth.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
In the days of the 'glorious' empire, we sent men of enterprise and thousands of soldiers to distant parts of the world where we were neither needed, nor wanted, nor welcome and simply TOOK whatever we could.
If you go back far enough, you'll see this same 'pattern' as far back as the Vikings, possibly further.
And what are we doing today? Exactly the same thing. Only now we call the men of enterprise 'multinational corporations' and we call the soldiers 'UN peacekeepers'.
And here's the miserable, tragic irony of it: WE ARE NOT TAKING ANYTHING WE NEED.
We have everything we need right here.
But in sending 'men of enterprise' to other parts of the world, they have created businesses based on the minerals they found there, and have used their financial power to weave these luxuries into the fabric of society to such an extent that they are now considered necessities.
And so the cycle is perpetuated: TAKING HAS BECOME A WAY OF LIFE.
G is also for grief. I grieve over humanity: those that take, and those that are taken from.
First thing's first: if you haven't seen the film 'Instinct' with Anthony Hopkins and Cuba Gooding Jr, go watch it. NOW!
Alright, alright, the main reason I've said do that is because of one word that Hopkins' character, Ethan Powell, uses: TAKERS.
Just after watching a few clips of 'Instinct', for the first time in years, I had this sudden revelation.
That's what we are, all of us. Us in our comfy, coseted, western civilisation. We represent an entire race of people that don't build, or give anything. WE ONLY TAKE.
I've been continuing to read 'Rhodesia: Last Outpost of the British Empire' and in reading about the days of that part of Africa that is now Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia), I hit upon this little piece of truth.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
In the days of the 'glorious' empire, we sent men of enterprise and thousands of soldiers to distant parts of the world where we were neither needed, nor wanted, nor welcome and simply TOOK whatever we could.
If you go back far enough, you'll see this same 'pattern' as far back as the Vikings, possibly further.
And what are we doing today? Exactly the same thing. Only now we call the men of enterprise 'multinational corporations' and we call the soldiers 'UN peacekeepers'.
And here's the miserable, tragic irony of it: WE ARE NOT TAKING ANYTHING WE NEED.
We have everything we need right here.
But in sending 'men of enterprise' to other parts of the world, they have created businesses based on the minerals they found there, and have used their financial power to weave these luxuries into the fabric of society to such an extent that they are now considered necessities.
And so the cycle is perpetuated: TAKING HAS BECOME A WAY OF LIFE.
G is also for grief. I grieve over humanity: those that take, and those that are taken from.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
F is for Faith
Intro
Writing about faith is a little bit of a strange decision for me: in many ways and for a lot of things, I don't have any. May be a fatalistic resignation to one concept over another but actual faith? I'm not so sure.
F is for Faith
Usually when I use one of my alphabetic designations like this, the word the relevant letter stands for is a problem. And so it is here.
Faith is a problem.
There, I said it. Yes I'm being deliberately inflammatory, and it's not even exactly true, but it's close - much like saying 'money is the root of all evil' when the full, correct quote is 'the love of money is the root of all evil'. But then, the whole point it is misquoted is that the human condition all but dictates that the former is just as true as the latter.
For example, the Israelis believe that the creation of a Palestinian state would represent an unacceptable threat to their very existence. The Palestinians believe that without creating a Palestinian state, they are doomed.
Both viewpoints are actually articles of faith, and both are fundamentally flawed.
F is for Fundamentals
It's usually the fundamentalists of a particular belief that are singled out as living proof that faith is at best a problem, at worst a plague.
Let us examine the fundamentals behind my example.
Why do the Israelis so deeply fear the creation of a Palestinian state? I believe it is primarily because there is a massive historical precedent for conflict between the Arabs and the Jews, far older than the creation of the modern state of Israel. In one form or another, the Israelis and the Palestinians have been in conflict for thousands of years. So to the Israeli mind, the creation of a Palestinian state wouldn't be about doing justice to the Palestinians, but about setting up their arch enemies as their neighbours, where they would be a threat to their security, their economy and their increasing dominance on the world stage through their exportation of technology and private security.
In other words, Israelis believe that the creation of a Palestinian state is tantamount to taking away the land they have been given - by God, from a Jewish point of view; Britain and the US from the political.
Strangely, it is actually the Palestinian fundamental that is more interesting. Why are they so keen on the creation of a Palestinian state?
F is for Frontier
There was a time when there were no frontiers in the strict geographical sense that we understand by the word 'borders' today. A frontier was a fluid thing that moved by the day. Many people were hunter-gatherers of a nomadic nature, never settling in one place for long.
In my reading of "Rhodesia: The Last Outpost of the British Empire" by Peter Baxter, so far, Baxter seems to share my view that the imposition of borders in Africa accounts for a great deal of bloodshed (to put the idea very, very roughly). Where before tribes could move at will, skirmish as necessary and relocate accordingly, with the arrival of the Europeans these tribal peoples frequently found themselves pinned between one border and another; borders that were violently defended by Europeans insisting that the land and resources beyond 'belonged' to them.
In today's capitalist world, a piece of earth to call your own means stability, safety and the protection of international law. What's stable and safe about it? Well you can stamp your seal of ownership on something (whether it actually belongs to you or not) and charge people twice as much as it's worth (minimum) so that you can earn a living. So far so good, even I admit that.
The problem is, human beings aren't content with having enough - enough is NEVER enough. Having enough means having a base to operate from so that you can get more.
Being successful in our society means having more than the next guy.
F is for Finance
So, while the developing world is evolving towards capitalism, the world's foremost financial minds are meeting at the luxury resort of Davos Switzerland to discuss the future of the European Union. And what is likely to feature as it has done before: why doesn't capitalism work?
And why do I object to this? Well, let's consider it.
Let's think of a previous cycle: the production of energy on an industrial scale. First, 'western' civilisation had energy produced by burning fossil fuels. By the time today's emerging powers caught up with that idea, fossil fuels were being superceded by the cleaner, more efficient - and by the way more dangerous - nuclear power.
On the one hand you could say that 'encouraging' (aka forcing) the developing world to adopt nuclear power was a concern for the environment. But of course that's not the real reason. The real reason is money, as always. Nuclear power was something western civilisation developed so we could export it, sell it, mass produce it - simultaneously earning ourselves a fortune, and forestalling the inevitable changes on the leader board.
And here we go again. Just as Brazil, India and China are starting to be major players in a globally capitalistic society, the traditional economic superpowers are busy discussing what to replace it with.
F is for Futile
There's a reason that philosophy, politics, economics and a variety of other academic subjects do not meet humanity's needs when they are practically applied.
It's a very simple reason. Are you reading closely?
All these areas of academic reasoning are concerned with working within the system.
The most fundamental thing human beings will agree on if asked is that this system isn't working. That's why we complain about it all the time.
But all these methods are about improving the system. We think that if we work hard enough, everything will be perfect: if we have enough, we'll be happy; if we pour enough money into it, the system will work: everyone will have not only what they want, but what they need.
The system is flawed. Adam Smith, the father of modern economics basically said that the best result will come with everyone doing what's best for himself.
The trouble is, that even when we started working with modern economics, even back at the dawn of time, there was no level playing field. Communism tried to create one and it didn't work.
Capitalism is the individual looking out for himself. Communism is the state looking out for everyone. Those are basically the two outlooks we're stuck with.
And everyone's so busy trying to perfect one or the other, that it never occurs to them to try something different.
America could stop trying to run the world at the cost of everyone else's freedom.
Israel could work through the challenges of allowing the creation of a Palestinian state.
The Palestinians could move somewhere new.
But it's easier to fight about the way things are.
"The only thing that will redeem mankind is co-operation." (Bertrand Russell)
BUT
"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm still not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein)
Writing about faith is a little bit of a strange decision for me: in many ways and for a lot of things, I don't have any. May be a fatalistic resignation to one concept over another but actual faith? I'm not so sure.
F is for Faith
Usually when I use one of my alphabetic designations like this, the word the relevant letter stands for is a problem. And so it is here.
Faith is a problem.
There, I said it. Yes I'm being deliberately inflammatory, and it's not even exactly true, but it's close - much like saying 'money is the root of all evil' when the full, correct quote is 'the love of money is the root of all evil'. But then, the whole point it is misquoted is that the human condition all but dictates that the former is just as true as the latter.
For example, the Israelis believe that the creation of a Palestinian state would represent an unacceptable threat to their very existence. The Palestinians believe that without creating a Palestinian state, they are doomed.
Both viewpoints are actually articles of faith, and both are fundamentally flawed.
F is for Fundamentals
It's usually the fundamentalists of a particular belief that are singled out as living proof that faith is at best a problem, at worst a plague.
Let us examine the fundamentals behind my example.
Why do the Israelis so deeply fear the creation of a Palestinian state? I believe it is primarily because there is a massive historical precedent for conflict between the Arabs and the Jews, far older than the creation of the modern state of Israel. In one form or another, the Israelis and the Palestinians have been in conflict for thousands of years. So to the Israeli mind, the creation of a Palestinian state wouldn't be about doing justice to the Palestinians, but about setting up their arch enemies as their neighbours, where they would be a threat to their security, their economy and their increasing dominance on the world stage through their exportation of technology and private security.
In other words, Israelis believe that the creation of a Palestinian state is tantamount to taking away the land they have been given - by God, from a Jewish point of view; Britain and the US from the political.
Strangely, it is actually the Palestinian fundamental that is more interesting. Why are they so keen on the creation of a Palestinian state?
F is for Frontier
There was a time when there were no frontiers in the strict geographical sense that we understand by the word 'borders' today. A frontier was a fluid thing that moved by the day. Many people were hunter-gatherers of a nomadic nature, never settling in one place for long.
In my reading of "Rhodesia: The Last Outpost of the British Empire" by Peter Baxter, so far, Baxter seems to share my view that the imposition of borders in Africa accounts for a great deal of bloodshed (to put the idea very, very roughly). Where before tribes could move at will, skirmish as necessary and relocate accordingly, with the arrival of the Europeans these tribal peoples frequently found themselves pinned between one border and another; borders that were violently defended by Europeans insisting that the land and resources beyond 'belonged' to them.
In today's capitalist world, a piece of earth to call your own means stability, safety and the protection of international law. What's stable and safe about it? Well you can stamp your seal of ownership on something (whether it actually belongs to you or not) and charge people twice as much as it's worth (minimum) so that you can earn a living. So far so good, even I admit that.
The problem is, human beings aren't content with having enough - enough is NEVER enough. Having enough means having a base to operate from so that you can get more.
Being successful in our society means having more than the next guy.
F is for Finance
So, while the developing world is evolving towards capitalism, the world's foremost financial minds are meeting at the luxury resort of Davos Switzerland to discuss the future of the European Union. And what is likely to feature as it has done before: why doesn't capitalism work?
And why do I object to this? Well, let's consider it.
Let's think of a previous cycle: the production of energy on an industrial scale. First, 'western' civilisation had energy produced by burning fossil fuels. By the time today's emerging powers caught up with that idea, fossil fuels were being superceded by the cleaner, more efficient - and by the way more dangerous - nuclear power.
On the one hand you could say that 'encouraging' (aka forcing) the developing world to adopt nuclear power was a concern for the environment. But of course that's not the real reason. The real reason is money, as always. Nuclear power was something western civilisation developed so we could export it, sell it, mass produce it - simultaneously earning ourselves a fortune, and forestalling the inevitable changes on the leader board.
And here we go again. Just as Brazil, India and China are starting to be major players in a globally capitalistic society, the traditional economic superpowers are busy discussing what to replace it with.
F is for Futile
There's a reason that philosophy, politics, economics and a variety of other academic subjects do not meet humanity's needs when they are practically applied.
It's a very simple reason. Are you reading closely?
All these areas of academic reasoning are concerned with working within the system.
The most fundamental thing human beings will agree on if asked is that this system isn't working. That's why we complain about it all the time.
But all these methods are about improving the system. We think that if we work hard enough, everything will be perfect: if we have enough, we'll be happy; if we pour enough money into it, the system will work: everyone will have not only what they want, but what they need.
The system is flawed. Adam Smith, the father of modern economics basically said that the best result will come with everyone doing what's best for himself.
The trouble is, that even when we started working with modern economics, even back at the dawn of time, there was no level playing field. Communism tried to create one and it didn't work.
Capitalism is the individual looking out for himself. Communism is the state looking out for everyone. Those are basically the two outlooks we're stuck with.
And everyone's so busy trying to perfect one or the other, that it never occurs to them to try something different.
America could stop trying to run the world at the cost of everyone else's freedom.
Israel could work through the challenges of allowing the creation of a Palestinian state.
The Palestinians could move somewhere new.
But it's easier to fight about the way things are.
"The only thing that will redeem mankind is co-operation." (Bertrand Russell)
BUT
"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm still not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein)
Sunday, January 22, 2012
E is for Equality
Intro
Depending on how you read things, it's easy to assume that equality is a problem of the past. But is it? It's not as straight forward as we might think, at first glance, no matter what our instinctive response may be.
E is for Equality
Beyond the most basic of human needs that ensure our ability to continue living - air, food, water, warmth and so on - there is the human need that, one way or another, defines our existence: the need for love, connection, relationship, call it what you will. Our ability to have this need met defines us as individuals, and our inability to have it met defines us as a society (whether local, national or global).
It is a sobering thought that even with the meeting of its basic physical needs, without meeting its most basic emotional need for love, a newborn baby will simply die.
What is more sobering still, is that in many societies throughout the world, female babies are allowed to die, are literally thrown away or simply treated as less important than their male siblings.
I commend to your reading, at this point, the book "Half the Sky" by Nicholas D Kristof and Sheryl Wu Dunn. I find it amazing that the title of the book is based on a phrase coined by Mao Tse Tung, as in "Women hold up half the sky."
That simple pronouncement is the reason that China has a far higher ratio of engaged female workers than would, quite likely, otherwise be the case.
I'm not going to belabour the point of inequality: the book is rife with it. And if you don't feel like trawling through the whole book, have a scout of the movement's website.
But there are two points that seem most important to me:
1) It is not only men, but women as well that are perpetuating the cycle of inequality. I have seen this first-hand in Georgia, even heard it from girls' and womens' own mouths, that it is their husband's right to mistreat them in whatever way they feel fit. The reason for this is no doubt cultural, from a time where having a husband was a right to life, being without a husband was a passive invitation to be molested, raped and or bride-napped, and it was socio-economically impossible to survive as a single, individual woman.
2) The inequality goes both ways: the story of Meghalaya, India is as recent as January 19th 2012. In this state of north-east India, men are the down-at-heels citizens, fighting for their right to equal treatment. What interests me most about this is that the leader of the movement cites the inequality as the reason for men's disengagement at all levels, including alcoholism and drug abuse. My interest in this is that the same behaviours are cited as symptoms of inequality in the other direction.
Closer to home, there are frequent media references to the fact that women are generally paid less than their male counterparts in any given profession/field.
The second point above gives me cause to wonder: what is it that men think they have accomplished that they mentally give themselves license to sit back and do nothing? I can only come up with one answer: they have created an attitude among themselves that is also widespread among women: that women exist only to do a man's bidding, to bear his children and tidy up after him.
Men are overgrown children.
Last year in Georgia, my host family consisted of two grandparents, two parents and two small children. The boy was maybe 4 years old. One evening, tired of all his lip, the Mother - having told him several times to stop licking food out of his bowl - tapped him firmly in the mouth. The resulting screaming fit was not surprising - the shock of it would have done something similar to most of us. What shocked me was his raised hand and how close he came to hitting his Mother back. At 4 years old.
Based on this seemingly intrinsic global outlook, one could be forgiven a) for laying all of humanity's problems at the feet of men and b) for placing all one's hope in the emancipation of women.
Indeed the book 'Half the Sky' falls very little short of this attitude. But on the other hand it cites numerous examples of why this attitude is not unreasonable. From international health initiatives to grassroot microfinance organisations, the focus is largely on women - the former because of the massive need associated with pregnancy and childbirth, the latter because they make more reliable clients virtually every time.
E is for Empowerment
With the example of Meghalaya as a base, it is easy enough to conceive of a world where the tables are turned and men are fighting for equality on a global scale. If this happens it won't be because enough men have given enough women enough opportunities to take over existing companies, it will be because of the opposite: the chauvinistic attitudes of today will still abound and as such, women everywhere will become gifted, innovative entrepreneurs with enough market dominance to drive male-dominated companies out of business.
That is why E is for Empowerment: the only way to acheive and maintain equality is to ensure that ALL people are empowered.
There is only one difference between people who 'succeed' and people who 'fail' (I use these terms loosely to avoid the idea that certain things count as failure and certain things as success: the only definition of either is the attitude of the individual):
The successful don't give up.
Behind the dogged determination of the successful there may be numerous things like flexibility/fluidity (to circumstances of all kinds), psychological tools for self-motivation, back-up plans, or what have you. But the successful never give up. Many people in the UK have already given up: they have swallowed the lies of society for so long that they no longer even remember what their dreams were.
I see this all around me in my friends as much as anywhere else: people are rudderless, devoid of imagination. Whatever flare and vitality they once had has been dimmed. There are exceptions of various kinds that I thrill to see, and there are those who command respect for their choices because they have decided that some end or other (whether frequent travel or maintaining a long distance relationship) justifies the means of saving dreams for another time.
If I could wish anything for my life it would be the constant empowerment of people around me. We are all capable of so much more than we pretend to be.
The main 'complaint' I hear is that people don't know what to do. I fell into that category myself until recently. For that reason I frequently recommend the book 'What Colour is Your Parachute', by Richard N Bolles.
Unlike many other books/tools, this one doesn't try to find you your ideal job or career or even job sector. Through various means it helps you to determine your skills on a more general level, the kind of place you would want to live geographically, the kinds of people you would want to be surrounded by and so on. And I suspect that each area will have different values for each person. My own was finding a job that I would feel worthy of my full attention/commitment and the 'sacrifices' I make are in order to attain my goal; others may focus on living in the 'perfect place', others on surrounding themselves with the 'perfect group of friends' or finding the 'perfect person'.
After that, there are two simple tools that I commend to you. They are mine, and they are recommendations from my friend, Bonnie:
1) Act with courtesy. This is such a simple thing and yet it is infinitely powerful. To act with courtesy takes skill and courage when it is to be a universal application. Anyone can pretend to be courteous when it suits them, but how many can maintain it in the face of someone else's discourtesy?
Enlarging upon this is to act with love. Anyone can see what is happening on the surface of a person's life: we see joy, we see misery, we see pain, we see rage. But how often do we take the trouble to see beyond that? And how often do we (mentally) chastise people for their inability/refusal to treat us better because of the pain we feel?
This leads us to the second, because love opens doors...
2) Take the open door. Or as Bonnie puts it: Is this how I want my life to be? Your life is not the feelings of joy you had yesterday for whatever reason, and it is not the 'better' that your life will be tomorrow when things are 'back to normal'.
THIS is your life. Right now. How does it look? How does it feel? And if it isn't what you hope(d) for, what can you do about it?
Ever since I found a clarity about the direction of my life by working through 'What Colour is Your Parachute', I have frequently found myself in conversation with people of similar outlook, and that cannot be put down to coincidence. It is about attitude, and flowing with the energy around you.
This may sound ridiculous to some of you but let me put it another way...
E is for Energy
If you're into physics and/or you've read Dan Brown's "Angels and Demons", you will be aware of the advances in modern physics made through using the particle collider at CERN.
Elsewhere there is the Principle of Uncertainty, and the gradual realisation that even Einsten's theories of relativity are not as all-encompassing as was once thought.
To put it as simply as possible, even at a sub-atomic level, there are fields of energy. The Principle of Uncertainty states that it is impossible to know the exact weight AND speed of a particle. As you approach one value or the other, it evaporates. Most often, these are not called particles at all anymore, they are described as 'probability density fields' and/or 'energy packets'.
Sometimes the appearance is more particle-like and sometimes more wave-like.
And what scientists are slowly realising is that each of these energy packets, through every action, affects those around it, and this ripples out ad infinitum as in the theory of Chaos tenet:
It has been said something as small as the flutter of a butterfly's wing can ultimately cause a typhoon halfway around the world. - Chaos Theory
It seems the Chaiticians have been right all along, and more so than they realised.
And it is what we all must realise: every action we take or refuse to take has consequences. Don't worry about it, just try things and see where the energy leads you. We're still in control, we can change our minds, back up, switch directions at any moment.
E is for Empowerment
It's time to reach out. It's time to be great - hell, it's time to be awesome!!
We're back at empowerment. I'm not saying I've empowered you, but I find that the easiest way to feel empowered, is to empower others. So, what are your skills, talents, interests?
Now take them and use them to empower someone else.
Two final things for you. The first is a YouTube video created by Tony Robbins that inspires me hugely.
The other is a logical next step, I think. There are literally millions of people out in the world who are more empowered than anyone most of us have ever met. And the only thing that stands between them and their dream of a better life for their families and their community, is a loan of $25.
I don't know about anyone else, but that's less than I spend on my bus pass every week.
Here's to Kiva Microfunds and a revolution that WILL empower the human race.
Depending on how you read things, it's easy to assume that equality is a problem of the past. But is it? It's not as straight forward as we might think, at first glance, no matter what our instinctive response may be.
E is for Equality
Beyond the most basic of human needs that ensure our ability to continue living - air, food, water, warmth and so on - there is the human need that, one way or another, defines our existence: the need for love, connection, relationship, call it what you will. Our ability to have this need met defines us as individuals, and our inability to have it met defines us as a society (whether local, national or global).
It is a sobering thought that even with the meeting of its basic physical needs, without meeting its most basic emotional need for love, a newborn baby will simply die.
What is more sobering still, is that in many societies throughout the world, female babies are allowed to die, are literally thrown away or simply treated as less important than their male siblings.
I commend to your reading, at this point, the book "Half the Sky" by Nicholas D Kristof and Sheryl Wu Dunn. I find it amazing that the title of the book is based on a phrase coined by Mao Tse Tung, as in "Women hold up half the sky."
That simple pronouncement is the reason that China has a far higher ratio of engaged female workers than would, quite likely, otherwise be the case.
I'm not going to belabour the point of inequality: the book is rife with it. And if you don't feel like trawling through the whole book, have a scout of the movement's website.
But there are two points that seem most important to me:
1) It is not only men, but women as well that are perpetuating the cycle of inequality. I have seen this first-hand in Georgia, even heard it from girls' and womens' own mouths, that it is their husband's right to mistreat them in whatever way they feel fit. The reason for this is no doubt cultural, from a time where having a husband was a right to life, being without a husband was a passive invitation to be molested, raped and or bride-napped, and it was socio-economically impossible to survive as a single, individual woman.
2) The inequality goes both ways: the story of Meghalaya, India is as recent as January 19th 2012. In this state of north-east India, men are the down-at-heels citizens, fighting for their right to equal treatment. What interests me most about this is that the leader of the movement cites the inequality as the reason for men's disengagement at all levels, including alcoholism and drug abuse. My interest in this is that the same behaviours are cited as symptoms of inequality in the other direction.
Closer to home, there are frequent media references to the fact that women are generally paid less than their male counterparts in any given profession/field.
The second point above gives me cause to wonder: what is it that men think they have accomplished that they mentally give themselves license to sit back and do nothing? I can only come up with one answer: they have created an attitude among themselves that is also widespread among women: that women exist only to do a man's bidding, to bear his children and tidy up after him.
Men are overgrown children.
Last year in Georgia, my host family consisted of two grandparents, two parents and two small children. The boy was maybe 4 years old. One evening, tired of all his lip, the Mother - having told him several times to stop licking food out of his bowl - tapped him firmly in the mouth. The resulting screaming fit was not surprising - the shock of it would have done something similar to most of us. What shocked me was his raised hand and how close he came to hitting his Mother back. At 4 years old.
Based on this seemingly intrinsic global outlook, one could be forgiven a) for laying all of humanity's problems at the feet of men and b) for placing all one's hope in the emancipation of women.
Indeed the book 'Half the Sky' falls very little short of this attitude. But on the other hand it cites numerous examples of why this attitude is not unreasonable. From international health initiatives to grassroot microfinance organisations, the focus is largely on women - the former because of the massive need associated with pregnancy and childbirth, the latter because they make more reliable clients virtually every time.
E is for Empowerment
With the example of Meghalaya as a base, it is easy enough to conceive of a world where the tables are turned and men are fighting for equality on a global scale. If this happens it won't be because enough men have given enough women enough opportunities to take over existing companies, it will be because of the opposite: the chauvinistic attitudes of today will still abound and as such, women everywhere will become gifted, innovative entrepreneurs with enough market dominance to drive male-dominated companies out of business.
That is why E is for Empowerment: the only way to acheive and maintain equality is to ensure that ALL people are empowered.
There is only one difference between people who 'succeed' and people who 'fail' (I use these terms loosely to avoid the idea that certain things count as failure and certain things as success: the only definition of either is the attitude of the individual):
The successful don't give up.
Behind the dogged determination of the successful there may be numerous things like flexibility/fluidity (to circumstances of all kinds), psychological tools for self-motivation, back-up plans, or what have you. But the successful never give up. Many people in the UK have already given up: they have swallowed the lies of society for so long that they no longer even remember what their dreams were.
I see this all around me in my friends as much as anywhere else: people are rudderless, devoid of imagination. Whatever flare and vitality they once had has been dimmed. There are exceptions of various kinds that I thrill to see, and there are those who command respect for their choices because they have decided that some end or other (whether frequent travel or maintaining a long distance relationship) justifies the means of saving dreams for another time.
If I could wish anything for my life it would be the constant empowerment of people around me. We are all capable of so much more than we pretend to be.
The main 'complaint' I hear is that people don't know what to do. I fell into that category myself until recently. For that reason I frequently recommend the book 'What Colour is Your Parachute', by Richard N Bolles.
Unlike many other books/tools, this one doesn't try to find you your ideal job or career or even job sector. Through various means it helps you to determine your skills on a more general level, the kind of place you would want to live geographically, the kinds of people you would want to be surrounded by and so on. And I suspect that each area will have different values for each person. My own was finding a job that I would feel worthy of my full attention/commitment and the 'sacrifices' I make are in order to attain my goal; others may focus on living in the 'perfect place', others on surrounding themselves with the 'perfect group of friends' or finding the 'perfect person'.
After that, there are two simple tools that I commend to you. They are mine, and they are recommendations from my friend, Bonnie:
1) Act with courtesy. This is such a simple thing and yet it is infinitely powerful. To act with courtesy takes skill and courage when it is to be a universal application. Anyone can pretend to be courteous when it suits them, but how many can maintain it in the face of someone else's discourtesy?
Enlarging upon this is to act with love. Anyone can see what is happening on the surface of a person's life: we see joy, we see misery, we see pain, we see rage. But how often do we take the trouble to see beyond that? And how often do we (mentally) chastise people for their inability/refusal to treat us better because of the pain we feel?
This leads us to the second, because love opens doors...
2) Take the open door. Or as Bonnie puts it: Is this how I want my life to be? Your life is not the feelings of joy you had yesterday for whatever reason, and it is not the 'better' that your life will be tomorrow when things are 'back to normal'.
THIS is your life. Right now. How does it look? How does it feel? And if it isn't what you hope(d) for, what can you do about it?
Ever since I found a clarity about the direction of my life by working through 'What Colour is Your Parachute', I have frequently found myself in conversation with people of similar outlook, and that cannot be put down to coincidence. It is about attitude, and flowing with the energy around you.
This may sound ridiculous to some of you but let me put it another way...
E is for Energy
If you're into physics and/or you've read Dan Brown's "Angels and Demons", you will be aware of the advances in modern physics made through using the particle collider at CERN.
Elsewhere there is the Principle of Uncertainty, and the gradual realisation that even Einsten's theories of relativity are not as all-encompassing as was once thought.
To put it as simply as possible, even at a sub-atomic level, there are fields of energy. The Principle of Uncertainty states that it is impossible to know the exact weight AND speed of a particle. As you approach one value or the other, it evaporates. Most often, these are not called particles at all anymore, they are described as 'probability density fields' and/or 'energy packets'.
Sometimes the appearance is more particle-like and sometimes more wave-like.
And what scientists are slowly realising is that each of these energy packets, through every action, affects those around it, and this ripples out ad infinitum as in the theory of Chaos tenet:
It has been said something as small as the flutter of a butterfly's wing can ultimately cause a typhoon halfway around the world. - Chaos Theory
It seems the Chaiticians have been right all along, and more so than they realised.
And it is what we all must realise: every action we take or refuse to take has consequences. Don't worry about it, just try things and see where the energy leads you. We're still in control, we can change our minds, back up, switch directions at any moment.
E is for Empowerment
It's time to reach out. It's time to be great - hell, it's time to be awesome!!
We're back at empowerment. I'm not saying I've empowered you, but I find that the easiest way to feel empowered, is to empower others. So, what are your skills, talents, interests?
Now take them and use them to empower someone else.
Two final things for you. The first is a YouTube video created by Tony Robbins that inspires me hugely.
The other is a logical next step, I think. There are literally millions of people out in the world who are more empowered than anyone most of us have ever met. And the only thing that stands between them and their dream of a better life for their families and their community, is a loan of $25.
I don't know about anyone else, but that's less than I spend on my bus pass every week.
Here's to Kiva Microfunds and a revolution that WILL empower the human race.
Film Catch-Up
It's been an interesting week, film-wise. My last writings were almost a week ago about Shame and War Horse.
On Wednesday night I saw Haywire. Don't bother. It's awful in practically EVERY way possible. 'Nuff said.
Last night I saw J Edgar and Corionlanus back to back.
J Edgar is less a biopic of the man, to my mind, than it is a searing endictment of US intelligence services.
On the one hand, the film is naturally a biopic, and there can be no doubt that Hoover's reforms of the Justice Department - up to and including the creation of the Bureau of Investigation and then the Federal Bureau of Investigation - created a new kind of crime investigation, and much of what he did was definitely laudable. And within the biopic, there are hints (only hints - and this is where the film has been heavily criticised I think) of his morbid obedience to his mother, his viciously repressed sexuality (as a result of the former) and his driver of mistrust - of almost everyone, ultimately including his own staff if their 'loyalty' ever came into question.
It is obvious, for one, that Hoover's own attitude helped push the massive mistrust of Bolsheviks and Communists throughout the history of America, to such an extent that it still persists today, despite the fact that it is a huge anachronism. I'm sure that this must have contributedto , if not been the bedrock of, the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950s.
The second, less obvious idea, is that Hoover's attitude to his own bureau is also the bedrock of mistrust in and between various government agencies/departments - something that may explain the cycle of information release that we see: something happens (like 9/11) and later, it apparently comes to light that some government agency/department or other, had some kind of knowledge of this ahead of time.
The point that came across to me, especially, was the cycle of attack. It was during Hoover's life (assuming that the film is accurate on this subject) that the US government first concerned itself with pre-emptive action - that is, finding and arresting people for what they are planning to do. It was Hoover who also began the process of using evidence based on science and technology, as well as the testimony of expert witnesses.
While this was undoubtedly groundbreaking work, it also began the era of the super criminal, if you will. As fast as the FBI evolves methods of fighting and preventing crime, so the criminal world invents new ways of outsmarting them.
Hoover's name is synonimous with the FBI of course. But the FBI is the invention of a paranoid, deluded man attempting to protect his country, and more importantly himself, from invisible enemies. In speaking of the man, or the bureau and remembering the human rights abuses and REMOVALS that both have been responsible for, one might well cry SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS.
Likewise, Hoover used his secret files to (try to) intimidate and control every President he worked for, and also Martin Luther King Jr, among others. And that attitude I believe has also prevailed: Hoover believed that in times of peace, the people grew lazy and inattentive to the evils that beset them, and he was right. His error was attributing such evil to outside forces, rather than the inherent struggle of the human spirit for what is right over what is easy. And as such, he used such power as he had to try to invent the dangers and the evils he would have everyone cower from, in order to maintain his own personal power.
In light of that idea, the mistrustful attitudes of people everywhere, one might make the leap of thought - unaided - as to how the Twin Towers were really torn down. Were they destroyed by minions of some foreign power? Or as an exercise in distraction, grieving the American people so their government could go to war on the most invisible adversary in history, all the while securing the oil its country demands?
Corionlanus is a fascinating film. Being a Shakespeare play it needs no explanation or recapitulation. What makes it so fascinating is the manner in which Fiennes makes Shakespeare relevant to the 21st century by putting it in a fiercely modern setting. The scenes of street-level fire-fighting between the Romans and Volscians could be scenes from any piece of modern warfare for the last 20 years.
What I see in Coriolanus is the seed of a problem that looks set to beset our own society. I have made no secret of my reading of events around the current Falklands scuffle. But in speaking to others it seems that many would, out of loyalty to friends and relatives who fought, suffered and died in the last Falklands War, would support another such war, so that the losses incurred by the first may not have been in vain.
It is a similar attitude to those that have remarked on War Horse as a good introduction for young children to the horrors of the First World War. Yes, the First World War was a global attrocity, but yes it was dwarfed by the Second. And if truth be told, both conflicts belong to a world that does not exist anymore. The war we fight today is not against armies massed against us that must be slaughtered until both sides feel sufficiently wounded and reported of to make terms for peace. We fight against the insidious apathy of human nature whereby tyrrants take the rights of the people and make of them a mockery on the international stage, in the faces of the very leaders sworn to uphold them.
If children must be schooled, it should be in peace, not war. Without the learning of war, there might be less of it. And with the learning of peace there might be more of it.
Coriolanus is cast out by his people for his warlike nature, and he throws in their faces their taunts of disrepect towards the very people he protects. There is nothing spoken of the politics of the situation - even in ancient Rome, armies did not go to war for sport.
Much like the repercussions against 9/11, no-one ever questioned the motives of the agitators - if indeed Al-Qaeda was the root cause of that hideous day. And that is because governments the world over see more profit in securing what they want through war, not peace.
The road of peace is slow because the gentleness of its approach invites indifference, whereas the violence of war is much harder to ignore.
Consider the following quote from Hernan Reyes in "Fast 5":
'If you dominate the people by force, they will eventually fight back, because they have nothing to lose.
[This is the trademark of political tyranny]
And that's the key: I go into the favelas and give them something to lose - electricity, running water, schoolrooms for their kids. And for that taste of a better life...I own them.'
[This is the trademark of economic tyranny]
We think ourselves so free, and that is because we have everything we are told we need, while we cower behind shields of political and economic agreements, drawn up on the back of war, written in the blood of people we don't care about because we never, ever hear about it.
In the end, Coriolanus becomes a scapegoat for both sides, having made war on Rome and peace with the Volscians.
Those that live by the sword will die by it.
On Wednesday night I saw Haywire. Don't bother. It's awful in practically EVERY way possible. 'Nuff said.
Last night I saw J Edgar and Corionlanus back to back.
J Edgar is less a biopic of the man, to my mind, than it is a searing endictment of US intelligence services.
On the one hand, the film is naturally a biopic, and there can be no doubt that Hoover's reforms of the Justice Department - up to and including the creation of the Bureau of Investigation and then the Federal Bureau of Investigation - created a new kind of crime investigation, and much of what he did was definitely laudable. And within the biopic, there are hints (only hints - and this is where the film has been heavily criticised I think) of his morbid obedience to his mother, his viciously repressed sexuality (as a result of the former) and his driver of mistrust - of almost everyone, ultimately including his own staff if their 'loyalty' ever came into question.
It is obvious, for one, that Hoover's own attitude helped push the massive mistrust of Bolsheviks and Communists throughout the history of America, to such an extent that it still persists today, despite the fact that it is a huge anachronism. I'm sure that this must have contributedto , if not been the bedrock of, the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950s.
The second, less obvious idea, is that Hoover's attitude to his own bureau is also the bedrock of mistrust in and between various government agencies/departments - something that may explain the cycle of information release that we see: something happens (like 9/11) and later, it apparently comes to light that some government agency/department or other, had some kind of knowledge of this ahead of time.
The point that came across to me, especially, was the cycle of attack. It was during Hoover's life (assuming that the film is accurate on this subject) that the US government first concerned itself with pre-emptive action - that is, finding and arresting people for what they are planning to do. It was Hoover who also began the process of using evidence based on science and technology, as well as the testimony of expert witnesses.
While this was undoubtedly groundbreaking work, it also began the era of the super criminal, if you will. As fast as the FBI evolves methods of fighting and preventing crime, so the criminal world invents new ways of outsmarting them.
Hoover's name is synonimous with the FBI of course. But the FBI is the invention of a paranoid, deluded man attempting to protect his country, and more importantly himself, from invisible enemies. In speaking of the man, or the bureau and remembering the human rights abuses and REMOVALS that both have been responsible for, one might well cry SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS.
Likewise, Hoover used his secret files to (try to) intimidate and control every President he worked for, and also Martin Luther King Jr, among others. And that attitude I believe has also prevailed: Hoover believed that in times of peace, the people grew lazy and inattentive to the evils that beset them, and he was right. His error was attributing such evil to outside forces, rather than the inherent struggle of the human spirit for what is right over what is easy. And as such, he used such power as he had to try to invent the dangers and the evils he would have everyone cower from, in order to maintain his own personal power.
In light of that idea, the mistrustful attitudes of people everywhere, one might make the leap of thought - unaided - as to how the Twin Towers were really torn down. Were they destroyed by minions of some foreign power? Or as an exercise in distraction, grieving the American people so their government could go to war on the most invisible adversary in history, all the while securing the oil its country demands?
Corionlanus is a fascinating film. Being a Shakespeare play it needs no explanation or recapitulation. What makes it so fascinating is the manner in which Fiennes makes Shakespeare relevant to the 21st century by putting it in a fiercely modern setting. The scenes of street-level fire-fighting between the Romans and Volscians could be scenes from any piece of modern warfare for the last 20 years.
What I see in Coriolanus is the seed of a problem that looks set to beset our own society. I have made no secret of my reading of events around the current Falklands scuffle. But in speaking to others it seems that many would, out of loyalty to friends and relatives who fought, suffered and died in the last Falklands War, would support another such war, so that the losses incurred by the first may not have been in vain.
It is a similar attitude to those that have remarked on War Horse as a good introduction for young children to the horrors of the First World War. Yes, the First World War was a global attrocity, but yes it was dwarfed by the Second. And if truth be told, both conflicts belong to a world that does not exist anymore. The war we fight today is not against armies massed against us that must be slaughtered until both sides feel sufficiently wounded and reported of to make terms for peace. We fight against the insidious apathy of human nature whereby tyrrants take the rights of the people and make of them a mockery on the international stage, in the faces of the very leaders sworn to uphold them.
If children must be schooled, it should be in peace, not war. Without the learning of war, there might be less of it. And with the learning of peace there might be more of it.
Coriolanus is cast out by his people for his warlike nature, and he throws in their faces their taunts of disrepect towards the very people he protects. There is nothing spoken of the politics of the situation - even in ancient Rome, armies did not go to war for sport.
Much like the repercussions against 9/11, no-one ever questioned the motives of the agitators - if indeed Al-Qaeda was the root cause of that hideous day. And that is because governments the world over see more profit in securing what they want through war, not peace.
The road of peace is slow because the gentleness of its approach invites indifference, whereas the violence of war is much harder to ignore.
Consider the following quote from Hernan Reyes in "Fast 5":
'If you dominate the people by force, they will eventually fight back, because they have nothing to lose.
[This is the trademark of political tyranny]
And that's the key: I go into the favelas and give them something to lose - electricity, running water, schoolrooms for their kids. And for that taste of a better life...I own them.'
[This is the trademark of economic tyranny]
We think ourselves so free, and that is because we have everything we are told we need, while we cower behind shields of political and economic agreements, drawn up on the back of war, written in the blood of people we don't care about because we never, ever hear about it.
In the end, Coriolanus becomes a scapegoat for both sides, having made war on Rome and peace with the Volscians.
Those that live by the sword will die by it.
Friday, January 20, 2012
D is for Demand
Intro
Following a brief read of a BBC article this morning about exploitation in the cotton industry worldwide, it occurred to me that the root of most human rights problems is greed - or demand.
D is for Demand
What are the things we demand? If we look at the world in general, I think it's clear:
(These are in no parituclar order, just as they occur to me)
1) Oil and plastics - hence all the conflict that drives the prices up, our continuing dependence on fossil fuels for all our energy needs despite the growing availability of green(er) alternatives like electric and salt water cars)
2) Coltan/tantalum - minerals I've discussed before that contribute to the conflict in eastern Congo where the bulk of this mineral is to be found on our planet (and also on that list should be copper, gold and tin, all of which are also to be found there); these minerals feature in electrical components in the bulk of electronic devices like computers and mobile phones
3) Cotton - this is in such high demand that people are trafficked in order to produce it, children work for nothing to process it (and there are reports of workers dropping from pure exhaustion and suffocating to death in the cotton itself)
This and similar points are the case with the production of many foodstuffs like chocolate, coffee and so on
4) Fruit and vegetables - this issue also applied to the items above, where GM techniques, pesticides and growth hormones are used to produce the food we DEMAND all year round regardless of the cost involved
We must face this simple truth: the chaos on our planet is driven by our greed. If there were no demand for oil, we would not fight over it; if there were no demand for unethically produced fabrics and foods, people and the environment would not be destroyed to manufacture them.
If you want a wealth of information on the politics and pollution of the existing supply-DEMAND infrastructure, I strongly advise you to visit the Environmental Justice Foundation website. It covers areas like cotton production, fishing, pesticides and on and on and on.
D is for Disdain
I know that anyone who visits the shop pages of organisations like EJF will be shocked to the point of abandonment, by the prices of their products, compared to the prices of massive chains like the Arcadia Group (Top Man/Top Shop for example). And there's a reason for that. We can't have it both ways: we either pay more for what we want so that the people providing the goods have the chance of a life like ours, or we pay less and simply accept that the cotton - for example - that constitutes our clothing may literally be full of their blood.
D is for Delusion
If we consider our society, it is painfully obvious to me that greed is our most fundamental problem. No matter how much we have, we always want more. Quite simply this is because our society is designed to feed and convince us of the lie that "if only I have x, my life will be fine". And that can be anything from a material thing (like a computer game, a particular DVD or music album) to something more abstract (like the concept of having a boy/girlfriend, a house, a car, a family or whatever).
The problem with this is, that the more we feed this belief, the stronger it becomes, and one form of it leads to another. Consumerism is designed to be self-perpetuating: I want a car, so I need a job, I need to take driving lessons, I need to buy insurance. And once you have the car, you want a better car, a faster car, a safer car, whatever. And with the abstract concepts it's worse: I want a boy/girlfriend, so I need better clothes, a better job, more money, a better body, I need to join a gym, take supplements, pay for cosmetic surgery.
And at the end of the day, the average person will tell you, all these efforts are not only unsuccessful, they are actually unhealthy and destructive.
D is for Dependence
I know from personal experience that it can take YEARS to overcome the society-cemented barrier of consumerism and see the 'real life' beyond it. This is because the lies that are pushed on us from birth until we are 'freed' to live our own lives, are difficult to shake. The old adage "It's easier to make a habit than to break one" hold true here too.
We become dependent on the lie. We can see this all around us: the more unhappy a person is, the more they try to compensate by working, buying things, moving from place to place and/or sexual partner to sexual partner. This is why the richest people in the world are often the loneliest and the most unhappy.
Dependence is any behaviour that we are unable to live without or that removes our freedom of choice. By the latter definition, we could attribute dependence to anything in our lives: money, food, sex, oil, reading, cinema. But we could also apply it to our very society. Society, whether we notice it or not, is gradually removing our freedom of choice in order to create a race of automotons that will feed the economy without threatening it in any way whatsoever.
The endgame may well be that one day people will not break the law because there will be no legal due process remaining; people will not buy coffee from independent shops because there won't be any; people will have no choice because there will only be monopolies: Tesco, Starbucks, coalition government. These all represent dependencies precisely because their existence and ongoing expansion is gradually removing our freedom of choice - not to mention the concept of individual free enterprise.
D is for Depression
Einstein defined insanity as the incessant repetition of a certain behaviour whilst expecting a varying/new result.
If that is true, then depression is the (un)conscious knowledge of our own insanity. I believe that at some level, everyone is aware of the insanity that society is perpetuating, and their own insanity which is unwilling or impotent to escape from.
It is a subject of constant comment that our society is the most privileged in the world, and simultaneously has the highest suicide rates as well as incidence rates of mental ill health, drug dependency, addictions and so on.
Another symptom of depression is laziness. I believe this is an offshoot of the same problem. Our ultimate aspiration is to be in a position where we earn vast amounts of money while doing absolutely nothing - as in the multi-billionaire owner of a multinational super-conglomerate, the more so if their company is (practically at least) a monopoly - like Mexico's national telephone company (Carlos Slim Helu) and Microsoft (Bill Gates), representing the two largest personal fortunes in the world.
D is for Dumping
This in turn leads on from laziness. The US is still the largest exporter of cotton in the world. China is the largest producer, but most of it is used domestically. The US, by comparison, has discovered that it is easier and cheaper to simply export all of their cotton, and not for sale but for processing.
This has two negative side effects: first of all it destroys - to all intents and purposes - the cotton industries of other countries, especially small family-owned enterprises by demolishing the price of cotton through market flooding. Second, and more important, it removes, to a large extent, the regulation of a cotton industry that doesn't exist: it is not the remit of the America cotton watchdog, the National Cotton Council of America, to regulate the use of American cotton overseas.
D is for Denial
The buck doesn't stop with cotton either. It runs in a somewhat similar vein to the NDAA (National Defense Authorisation Act) that Obama signed at the end of 2011, breaching international human rights law by denying:
1) Local, national jurisprudence and
2) Legal due process as set out by any country on earth
(To reiterate: the NDAA in part authorises US military and/or intelligence operatives to arrest anyone of any nationality anywhere on earth and detain them at a US army base without trial for an indefinite period - for life if necessary).
I would say it is clear that the implication is the deniability of such actions as they take place on foreign soil so that arguing of whether to adopt one set of legislative statutes or another will delay application of either indefinitely.
D is for Death
All that these massive industries have in common is death: people die in the struggle for oil - very often, it seems, at the hands of intelligence operatives from various countries to ensure that the 'right' people get to power in order to favour contracts with one country or another.
For example, it's all very well for David Cameron (the UK's Prime Minister) and Dick Sawle (an MP in the Falklands) to claim that the Falkland Islanders want to remain British, but James Peck clearly preferred to take Argentine citizenship. I wonder how many others share his sentiment but are unable to so easily follow through on it because of job and family ties. What is clear, is that the UK private sector stands to make a fortune on the oil under the oceanic shelf surrounding the islands, and it is not inconceivable (30 years on) for there to be a repeat of the Falklands War.
The lessons of the film Syriana are strikingly similar: of two royal brothers, one is murdered to ensure that he doesn't take power and then take oil away from the US delegation already in negotiations with his younger brother.
D is for Damned
My outlook is bleak; it often is. I have little enough faith in humanity and these are the simple issue.
The simple fact of the matter is that 'no-one' is going to get out of their car in protest at the true cost of oil.
No-one is going to spend GBP30 / USD50 on a T-shirt in protest at the true cost of cotton.
No-one is even going to email the manufacturers of their electronic communications devices to urge them to go conflict-free.
Or are they?
Following a brief read of a BBC article this morning about exploitation in the cotton industry worldwide, it occurred to me that the root of most human rights problems is greed - or demand.
D is for Demand
What are the things we demand? If we look at the world in general, I think it's clear:
(These are in no parituclar order, just as they occur to me)
1) Oil and plastics - hence all the conflict that drives the prices up, our continuing dependence on fossil fuels for all our energy needs despite the growing availability of green(er) alternatives like electric and salt water cars)
2) Coltan/tantalum - minerals I've discussed before that contribute to the conflict in eastern Congo where the bulk of this mineral is to be found on our planet (and also on that list should be copper, gold and tin, all of which are also to be found there); these minerals feature in electrical components in the bulk of electronic devices like computers and mobile phones
3) Cotton - this is in such high demand that people are trafficked in order to produce it, children work for nothing to process it (and there are reports of workers dropping from pure exhaustion and suffocating to death in the cotton itself)
This and similar points are the case with the production of many foodstuffs like chocolate, coffee and so on
4) Fruit and vegetables - this issue also applied to the items above, where GM techniques, pesticides and growth hormones are used to produce the food we DEMAND all year round regardless of the cost involved
We must face this simple truth: the chaos on our planet is driven by our greed. If there were no demand for oil, we would not fight over it; if there were no demand for unethically produced fabrics and foods, people and the environment would not be destroyed to manufacture them.
If you want a wealth of information on the politics and pollution of the existing supply-DEMAND infrastructure, I strongly advise you to visit the Environmental Justice Foundation website. It covers areas like cotton production, fishing, pesticides and on and on and on.
D is for Disdain
I know that anyone who visits the shop pages of organisations like EJF will be shocked to the point of abandonment, by the prices of their products, compared to the prices of massive chains like the Arcadia Group (Top Man/Top Shop for example). And there's a reason for that. We can't have it both ways: we either pay more for what we want so that the people providing the goods have the chance of a life like ours, or we pay less and simply accept that the cotton - for example - that constitutes our clothing may literally be full of their blood.
D is for Delusion
If we consider our society, it is painfully obvious to me that greed is our most fundamental problem. No matter how much we have, we always want more. Quite simply this is because our society is designed to feed and convince us of the lie that "if only I have x, my life will be fine". And that can be anything from a material thing (like a computer game, a particular DVD or music album) to something more abstract (like the concept of having a boy/girlfriend, a house, a car, a family or whatever).
The problem with this is, that the more we feed this belief, the stronger it becomes, and one form of it leads to another. Consumerism is designed to be self-perpetuating: I want a car, so I need a job, I need to take driving lessons, I need to buy insurance. And once you have the car, you want a better car, a faster car, a safer car, whatever. And with the abstract concepts it's worse: I want a boy/girlfriend, so I need better clothes, a better job, more money, a better body, I need to join a gym, take supplements, pay for cosmetic surgery.
And at the end of the day, the average person will tell you, all these efforts are not only unsuccessful, they are actually unhealthy and destructive.
D is for Dependence
I know from personal experience that it can take YEARS to overcome the society-cemented barrier of consumerism and see the 'real life' beyond it. This is because the lies that are pushed on us from birth until we are 'freed' to live our own lives, are difficult to shake. The old adage "It's easier to make a habit than to break one" hold true here too.
We become dependent on the lie. We can see this all around us: the more unhappy a person is, the more they try to compensate by working, buying things, moving from place to place and/or sexual partner to sexual partner. This is why the richest people in the world are often the loneliest and the most unhappy.
Dependence is any behaviour that we are unable to live without or that removes our freedom of choice. By the latter definition, we could attribute dependence to anything in our lives: money, food, sex, oil, reading, cinema. But we could also apply it to our very society. Society, whether we notice it or not, is gradually removing our freedom of choice in order to create a race of automotons that will feed the economy without threatening it in any way whatsoever.
The endgame may well be that one day people will not break the law because there will be no legal due process remaining; people will not buy coffee from independent shops because there won't be any; people will have no choice because there will only be monopolies: Tesco, Starbucks, coalition government. These all represent dependencies precisely because their existence and ongoing expansion is gradually removing our freedom of choice - not to mention the concept of individual free enterprise.
D is for Depression
Einstein defined insanity as the incessant repetition of a certain behaviour whilst expecting a varying/new result.
If that is true, then depression is the (un)conscious knowledge of our own insanity. I believe that at some level, everyone is aware of the insanity that society is perpetuating, and their own insanity which is unwilling or impotent to escape from.
It is a subject of constant comment that our society is the most privileged in the world, and simultaneously has the highest suicide rates as well as incidence rates of mental ill health, drug dependency, addictions and so on.
Another symptom of depression is laziness. I believe this is an offshoot of the same problem. Our ultimate aspiration is to be in a position where we earn vast amounts of money while doing absolutely nothing - as in the multi-billionaire owner of a multinational super-conglomerate, the more so if their company is (practically at least) a monopoly - like Mexico's national telephone company (Carlos Slim Helu) and Microsoft (Bill Gates), representing the two largest personal fortunes in the world.
D is for Dumping
This in turn leads on from laziness. The US is still the largest exporter of cotton in the world. China is the largest producer, but most of it is used domestically. The US, by comparison, has discovered that it is easier and cheaper to simply export all of their cotton, and not for sale but for processing.
This has two negative side effects: first of all it destroys - to all intents and purposes - the cotton industries of other countries, especially small family-owned enterprises by demolishing the price of cotton through market flooding. Second, and more important, it removes, to a large extent, the regulation of a cotton industry that doesn't exist: it is not the remit of the America cotton watchdog, the National Cotton Council of America, to regulate the use of American cotton overseas.
D is for Denial
The buck doesn't stop with cotton either. It runs in a somewhat similar vein to the NDAA (National Defense Authorisation Act) that Obama signed at the end of 2011, breaching international human rights law by denying:
1) Local, national jurisprudence and
2) Legal due process as set out by any country on earth
(To reiterate: the NDAA in part authorises US military and/or intelligence operatives to arrest anyone of any nationality anywhere on earth and detain them at a US army base without trial for an indefinite period - for life if necessary).
I would say it is clear that the implication is the deniability of such actions as they take place on foreign soil so that arguing of whether to adopt one set of legislative statutes or another will delay application of either indefinitely.
D is for Death
All that these massive industries have in common is death: people die in the struggle for oil - very often, it seems, at the hands of intelligence operatives from various countries to ensure that the 'right' people get to power in order to favour contracts with one country or another.
For example, it's all very well for David Cameron (the UK's Prime Minister) and Dick Sawle (an MP in the Falklands) to claim that the Falkland Islanders want to remain British, but James Peck clearly preferred to take Argentine citizenship. I wonder how many others share his sentiment but are unable to so easily follow through on it because of job and family ties. What is clear, is that the UK private sector stands to make a fortune on the oil under the oceanic shelf surrounding the islands, and it is not inconceivable (30 years on) for there to be a repeat of the Falklands War.
The lessons of the film Syriana are strikingly similar: of two royal brothers, one is murdered to ensure that he doesn't take power and then take oil away from the US delegation already in negotiations with his younger brother.
D is for Damned
My outlook is bleak; it often is. I have little enough faith in humanity and these are the simple issue.
The simple fact of the matter is that 'no-one' is going to get out of their car in protest at the true cost of oil.
No-one is going to spend GBP30 / USD50 on a T-shirt in protest at the true cost of cotton.
No-one is even going to email the manufacturers of their electronic communications devices to urge them to go conflict-free.
Or are they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)