"The campaign to make poverty history - a central moral challenge of our age - cannot remain a task for the few, it must become a calling for the many. On this International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, I urge everyone to join this struggle. Together, we can make real and sufficient progress towards the end of poverty."
United Nations Ex-Secretary-General, Kofi Annan
"Excerpts taken from his message to be delivered on the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty , 17 October 2006".
Today, October 17th is the International day to Eradicate Poverty, and as a result I have spent some considerable time this week in meetings, or just in conversation with people about poverty. . . and here is what I have learned . . .
The vast majority of people here in Nova Scotia, Canada believe that poverty (in Nova Scotia, not in the Global South) is pretty personal, that the causes are identifiable as lack of education or opportunity and and that the solutions lie in charity and better public services. Although there are many reasons for the income discrepancies in this country, no one seems, at least at first blush, to think about the systemic reasons. . .
Isn't poverty a result of the income distribution system? A large portion of jobs (I wish I knew how many) are minimum wage or low income jobs. (5.5% of jobs in Nova Scotia were minimum wage in 2005. I cannot find data for the last 5 years -- any suggestions? Since the minimum wage has increased three times since then and since the actual real dollar increase in wages has been pretty stagnant it does make me wonder if the percentage might be higher now. . .) Since we primarily use work to distribute income, if you are sick or disabled or mentally challenged, or mentally ill, or addicted or a hundred other reasons that keep you from working, then you will receive so-called "income assistance" which, of course puts you well below the poverty line. Usually assumed to be the LICO's set by stats Canada.
There is an old Marxist theory about "surplus labour". The theory being that employers want to keep an "army" or "pool" of surplus labour (those not working) in order to keep wages low. With capital able to gallop around the world they not only encourage that but it is a matter of public policy. (Starting with Paul Martin and probably before, the government believes that they have no need to work to lower the unemployment rate; that around 8% is acceptable.) They have been moving capital around for 30 years and out of North America for the last 20+. Just take the plant/factory/call centre and move it to where wages are lower. Now, in a place like Nova Scotia, where we have an aging population and we are not even replacing the steadily declining population - there is a shortage of labour,. That should drive wages up, but guess what? It does not. Instead, the federal government allows what they call "temporary foreign workers" to take jobs that cannot be filled by Canadians. When you look at the list of occupations they all look like professionals. but the reality is here in Nova Scotia that there are many workers (mostly from the Philippines) that are here on these work permits to work at Wendy's and Tim Horton's; there are 9-12 working at the St. Mary's Smoke House (fish plant) in Sherbrooke, Guysborough County, Nova Scotia where there is a 30% unemployment rate and where there would have been a line to get these $10 an hour jobs. No one knows how they got approved. ..
Anyway, my point is that poverty is not caused by my personal failings or illness - my addiction is as likely to be a symptom of poverty (thank you, Gina) as the cause - but is systemic.
This video of Malcolm Gladwell is American but identifies part of the problem -- the rich are NOT paying their share in the north, and rich corporations and a small number of ultra rich folks are just reaping the rewards of thieving the resources from the Global South.
This week the Human Rights Committee, of the U.N. made public their paper on the May 2010 attack on the Flotilla trying to take aid to Gaza, and the murders on the Mavi Marmara.
The draft paper which will be presented to the committee on Monday, called: Report of the international fact-finding mission to investigate violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, resulting from the Israeli attacks on the flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian assistance.
They say in the summary that:
This report was prepared by the fact-finding mission established by the Human Rights Council in resolution A/HRC/RES/14/1 of 2 June 2010 to investigate violations of international law, including international humanitarian law and human rights law, resulting from the interception by Israeli forces of the humanitarian aid flotilla bound for Gaza on 31 May 2010 during which nine people were killed and many others injured. . .
. . .
The report contains a legal analysis of facts as determined by the Mission with a view to determining whether violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, took place.
The fact-finding mission concluded that a series of violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, were committed by the Israeli forces during the interception of the flotilla and during the detention of passengers in Israel prior to deportation.
The whole report is rather damning, although most media coverage in Israel writes it off suggesting that the committee was "biased from the beginning" and that the U.N. is generally biased toward Israel.
The report suggests that Israel's boarding of the Mavi Marmara (and others in the flotilla) in International Waters, was illegal and that they have broken the 4th Geneva Convention and that some people could face criminal charges, as there is "clear evidence to support prosecutions." There are many more conclusions and recommendations - from paying compensation to victims to returning the property that Israel seized from passengers.
Part of the recommendation which also includes a statement that there IS, in fact, a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, says:
The Mission considers that several violations and offences have been committed. It
is not satisfied that, in the time available, it can say that it has been able to compile a
comprehensive list of all offences. However, there is clear evidence to support prosecutions of the following crimes within the terms of article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
• wilful killing;
• torture or inhuman treatment;
• wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
The Mission also considers that a series of violations of Israel’s obligations under
international human rights law have taken place, including:
• right to life (article 6, ICCPR);
• torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (article 7,
ICCPR; CAT);
• right to liberty and security of the person and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (article 9, ICCPR);
• right of detainees to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of
the human person (article 10, ICCPR);
• freedom of expression (article 19, ICCPR).
The right to an effective remedy should be guaranteed to all victims. The mission must not
be understood to be saying that this is a comprehensive list by any means.
Another interesting development in the Middle East - there is now an IPhone app created by Americans for Peace Now re: "facts on the ground" in the occupied territories. It is quite a WOW sounding app - though I have not had a chance to try it. The story says that:
Settlements are symbolized by little blue houses on the map. Clicking once on the icon gives its land area. A second click brings up a window with more details: the year it was established, population, ideology (or lack of), character (secular or religious), amount of 'private Palestinian land' it occupies, and a graph that tracks its population growth. iPhone users can also zoom in on outposts marked in red. The map includes the route of the Green Line, Jerusalem's municipal boundaries, and the various zones under different security arrangements, Area A and Area B.
A story today, following on the announcement that they are laying off a lot of government workers says:
Cuban authorities will issue licences to open small private businesses starting next month in 138 different areas of economic activity, as well as to rent out homes, Cuban state media reported Friday. The move follows Cuba's announcement earlier this month of plans to eliminate 500,000 jobs in its sprawling government sector by the first quarter of 2011. The Cuban Communist Party daily Granma published a list of trades that will be allowed to engage in self-employment, including masons, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, massage therapists, typists, hairdressers, computer programmers, domestic personnel, driving instructors and flower salesmen. 'Those who are registered as self-employed and those who join them will have the obligation to pay taxes on personal income, on sales, on public services and on the use of labour force, beyond contributing to social security,' Granma said.
Allowing Cubans to have small businesses, and to hire other workers is new - here's hoping that it is of assistance, and that once the economy is a little less controlled, perhaps the controls on civil society will be lessened, although I do not want to see Cuba become another poor Caribbean nation with huge income disparities. . . as well as an example of civil society and Trade Union repression. My own experiences in Cuba (but I do not speak Spanish well enough to have a political discussion) are that people don;t like the system but think it is "fair". They are reasonably happy with the fact that incomes are pretty fairly allocated and they do not see a big difference. They are, though, rather unhappy to be prohibited from leaving the country "on holiday", and some people complained about lack of access to medicine even though they had money. In Havana that was the most common complaint from hospitality workers who can amass the cash (from tips) but cannot take a trip (money cannot leave the country frivolously I guess. . . )
When I attended the Civicus Congress this year, I learned a bit about fighting against poverty and for Human rights. One of the people I interviewed was Sylvia Borren, the co-chair of the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (Whiteband) Campaign. She spoke at length about how we, in the north, have laws that protect the children and women (and men, of course) in our countries from gross exploitation. If a company was to use child labour in Canada they would face stiff penalties, especially if there was trafficking involved. . . . But, if a Canadian company is using child labour in India or China, or some other country, there are no such penalties. Now NDP member of the House of Commons Peter Julien has introduced a Private members Bill - Bill 354 to support international protection of human rights - not just in Canada, anymore.
Wouldn't it be meaningful if we could force Canadian companies to act with ethics, considering human rights and non-exploitation everywhere they worked/invested/manufactured etc. I do not expect the Bill to pass -- there are too many people in Ottawa beholden to or too friendly with international corporations/finance, but it is dream that I support, and that I think would/could be supported by most working Canadians. Bravo Peter J.
A month or so ago, I wrote a post about Economic Justice and it has caused some questions - but one of the main ones is about the relationship of economics to democracy.
Can you have democracy without a free press, or a free market? What is a free press or a free market? What is democracy, anyway?
That definition from the Economist's, Democracy Index, is, I think, OK with me. Too often though there is conflation of the concept of democracy with unfettered markets. In my view, the words free press and free market generally mean a society where one can purchase and invest without limitations, in which one can purchase a press/media/access to an audience and run it unencumbered - these days even by promoting insurrection or an overthrow of the government, if you happen to be in a State that wants a non-American model. (Cuba and Venezuela and China come to mind, though obviously Cuba takes the worst of the criticism, then Venezuela and then China, even though Venezuela has free and independent elections and China has none.) But, we do have a lot of trade with China (they make it, we buy it) and they are not expected to part with their "state" oil, whereas small South American countries are expected to make it available, cheaply to U.S. interests or they are "dictatorships" - like Venezuela which, in fact, has had free elections with int'l observers.
Most definitions seem to assume that a free press is just one which runs encumbered by the State and it's regulations - where the state does not regulate the press in any way. But is this really a "free" press? Those governments that have more planned economies, promote legislation to help the poor, and/or that do not have completely open "markets" where rich Americans (primarily) cannot just come in and take the resources and flee, or exploit the labour and flee, and who regulate the press, to try and educate people and resist the attempts of trans-national corporations and their lies - can they have a "free" press? How would we measure it? Hopefully, not by following the resistance to hate speech, and calling it a failure of free speech, as the so-called "International Free Press Society" does.
Too often I hear people talk about democracy related to "free markets". Free markets generally means an unencumbered, even unregulated market - one where people are less important than profit; one where corporations have the same rights as people, and where you have more "rights" when you have more money. As soon as a society starts to regulate, to make society "fairer", more "just" - at that point - corporations, and people with lots of money, start crying foul because they cannot make a profit from your labour, or by exploiting our common resources, without paying a fee/royalties or taxes, or just being outright prevented from their aims.
There is a difference between democracy and a free market. One can vote for leadership, at the neighbourhood, district, region, province/state or national level. If the votes are fair and no one is banned from voting, (there is total suffrage), if the system is fair (probably a system of proportional representation) and if votes cannot be purchased either directly or through media buys, there is a level of human rights, and no oppression of minorities, then one has a democracy, I think. But if, as in the U.S., there is no control over who can fund, or how much one can fund a political campaign, and no regulation of what you can say once you buy the time to broadcast or deliver in print, then it becomes, in my analysis, less democratic.
Now, what about the so-called "free press" - what makes it free? Is it access for all? Is it a fair distribution of paper and the airways? No - it is a so-called "free press" when it can be purchased and when you can say anything that you like with that purchased access to an audience. Is it really a "free press" when it is only available to those with the money to purchase national media? Again, my analysis would suggest that this is not in fact a "free press". This is a press available to the highest bidder, or the one with cronies in the business, or who controls a large corporation that can make a media buy like the recent purchase of CTV by BCE Inc.
I simply cannot understand why universally, people are not constantly asking questions about this democracy, free press, free market set of false notions. No one (well not on the TV news, or in the national/mainstream press) calls Saudi Arabia a dictatorship, or an authoritarian regime, or worries that it is undemocratic, no one sends me petitions to sign about the position of women in Saudi, no one talks about press censorship in Saudi or any of the related Arab states. . . (OK occasionally there is news that a Canadian or U.S. national is going to be "put to death" or "flogged' for some - by our standards - insignificant crime, but this tends to be short lived) Why? Because although they are extreme and undemocratic - they have "free markets", and a press friendly to a capitalist economic system, unfettered markets and foreign investment. In Saudi Arabia, only males over 21 may vote, there are few ballots, and, according to The Economist'sDemocracy Index, the Saudi government is the seventh most authoritarian regime from among the 167 countries rated. It is also according to the World Bank - the 13th easiest country in the world in which to do business. . . and really, they seem to ask - what could be more important? I am having a "go" at Saudi because they are not democratic, bad on Human Rights and yet they are considered a good, easy place to do business and so we seldom see them maligned in the "free press". Iran on the other hand - also with Sharia law, with actually more freedom for women, and which ranks higher on the democracy scale (for authoritarian regimes mind you) is constantly maligned in the press (not that I am suggesting that it should not be) and although higher on the democracy scale than Saudi, is 137th in ease of doing business, compared to Saudi's 13th. Also, Saudi Arabia is the world's leading country in the case of torture-by-flogging , public beheadings and publically crucifying condemned prisoners. But Iran as we know, is far more vilified.
The principle of the protection of basic human rights is widely accepted.
It is embodied in constitutions throughout the world as well as in the UN Charter and international agreements such as the Helsinki Final Act. Basic human rights include
freedom of speech, expression and the press; freedom of religion; freedom of assembly and association; and the right to due judicial process. All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule. But rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic. In a democracy majority rule must be combined with guarantees of individual human rights and the rights of minorities.
Sept. 12, 2010 - this morning there is also this story at Rabble -
As a hunger strike by over 30 Mapuche political prisoners in Chile reaches a critical stage, international media attention is growing for their demands for an end to the anti-terrorist laws under which they were tried and convicted. These regressive laws remain on the books from the era of the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, and have been routinely used against leaders of the Mapuche's struggle to defend their land and autonomy. The hunger strike began on July 12, and many of the prisoners are now in very precarious health, having lost up to 18 kg. The Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada website does not include a word about the Mapuche hunger strike. In contrast, over the past two months the Canadian government has issued five press releases concerning human rights in Iran.[my bolding]
So why don't our "democratic" countries speak out for the rights of others, in these countries, even the ones that are "easy to do business in". We would not allow someone to procure children for sexual slavery or trafficking of their labour in our own country, but we do not condemn it or allow charges against those of our own citizens who do this in other countries, and, although there is at least some outcry about individual child sexual abusers (even if it happens in Thailand) there is no outcry when corporations with a "head office", or with substantial interests here, in Canada, use child labour in other countries. There is no demand that there be open disclosure from corporations about where and how they source their products and the conditions of work and the workers who make, or pick, or sew the products in question. Why not? If there is democracy here, and we consider it of value, why shouldn't there be democracy everywhere and why should we not demand it/insist on it - at least with our purchasing power, and of those corporations who want to have the right of a citizen here - then have the responsibility of a citizen of a democracy - everywhere.
In the meantime, how do you define democracy? Is the Economist Index helpful, does it measure the right things? Are capitalism and so-called "free markets" related to democracy or does democracy mean something different to you? What would democracy at work, look like?
For me, democracy should mean that everyone has access to citizen participation tools and organizations that can improve economic justice, the environment, relative poverty and improved distribution of income, everyone has equal access to the opportunities in the society, and no class or gender or race or religion, or ability or lack of it, holds you back from participating in making things better for yourself, your family, your community and the world.
A couple of days ago, there was an unbelievable post in the Globe and Mail. I am sputtering with a kind of rage after reading it, although daily the mainstream press does make me rage or cry.
The Globe piece was written in response to a private member's bill that sets out to limit the salaries of CEO's of charities. I don't know what drove the member to introduce the bill, but it seems reasonable to me, although it might have been good to include something about minimum salaries because too many people in the sector make way too little money!
It is the case that everyone pays a portion of these salaries since charities pay NO taxes - so there does need to be a public good in the work that they do, and the public should be benefiting from their work. The federal government registers charities and gives them numbers so that they can in turn, give out charitable receipts for the donations, so that people do NOT pay taxes on the money that they donate (or at least it has a tax benefit - not $1 -$1 depending on how much you donate and your income.)
So the federal government on behalf of Canadians, gives out the numbers and set out rules for charities about how much you can spend on administration, and how you have to report, and how quickly you must spend the donated money etc. (It is a complex system and people without MBA's and law degrees figure it out every year. ) Anyway the private members bill, for good reason wants to limit the salaries of charities to no more than $250,000 per year. Now given that amount is 5X the average salary of a Canadian that seems like it should attract sufficient "talent". . . As far as I can see, to make big money, you just have to not care - and to take the lesser dollars one has to care about the work and not the income. I mean $100,000 a year is in the top 5% of income earners in this country - 250,0000 is in the top 1-2% . . . we really cannot find the talent to run a charity (even a big one) in 95-98% of the working population?
The article says in part:
But what if, in fact, we’re actually hurting the needy by restricting charity salaries? What if it is the case – as it is with most of the rest of the economic world – that when you increase the amount of money you are willing to pay, you can recruit from a better talent pool, and if you recruit from a better talent pool, you can get leaders who can increase the amount of money being raised for the needy?
What we don’t realize is that the kinds of restrictions being proposed have a powerful negative effect. They create stark, mutually exclusive choices between doing well and doing good for the brightest young minds coming out of our best universities, law schools and business schools. As a result, tens of thousands of them – any one of whom might have made an enormous difference fighting social problems – march directly into the for-profit sector each year without even considering a career in charity, because they are unwilling to make the kind of lifelong economic sacrifice that the charity ethic requires of them. Their talents are lost to the needy forever and gained for a lifetime by the marketers of Budweiser, BMW and Botox. How is that smart?
Because I can see the heads nodding, I felt compelled to explain why this is so misguided.
I would like to see data, applying to non-profits and charities that suggests that "when you increase the amount of money you are willing to pay, you can recruit from a better talent pool, and if you recruit from a better talent pool, you can get leaders who can increase the amount of money being raised for the needy?"
All those people that are only out for their own benefit, who go where their income can be maximized, they are a better talent pool for the charity sector? This may be great for the "Capital Casino" that these folks normally work in, and they may be smart enough to run a charity, but I fail to see the connection. There is some magic about $250,000 to get the best and most committed? If you get more talent, you get better leaders? Of course being a talented money maker/manager makes you great at running a charity because it is just like the "capital casino" - it is just like the captains of industry to want to "increase the amount of money raised for the "needy"! For the Needy? What year is this? This smacks of improving life for those in the poor house. You know what else? Those charities that pay the big bucks - hospitals and universities are at the top of the list are hardly for the needy-- charities for the so-called needy - we are talking the Elizabeth Fry and John Howard Societies, the drop in's for the mentally ill, the Oxfam's and Care and Service Canada. . . for the 70% of the world even worse off than poor Canadians. Will increasing their CEO's salary really get better talent that can raise more money? Maybe, but only because they are better connected to the money already! And I will take THAT into consideration, (always hire rich people to raise money as they can make their rich friends donate in larger numbers than I can) but more "talent"? - not on your life.
Imagine the talent that it takes to run an operation on a shoe strong, so that all the money can go to "clients and services"; where you have to worry about the number of photocopies that you are using; or making sure that you keep enough money in the bank, after providing service, to make payroll every two weeks; where you have to worry about your administration costs as a percentage of your income, because you don't have an organization like a University or a hospital that has a separate "foundation" that raises the money so that all that University and hospital admin is covered not by the charity dollars but by the hospital or university. . . yup we really need those financial cowboys to be running the charities of the country.
Last thing about salaries - somehow the author of this article keeps stating that people shouldn't have to make "financial sacrifices" in order to do charitable work - and I agree - but let's lift all those folks making $25-45,000 per year up - let's have them earn in the $60-80,000 range - CEO's? they can make up to $100,000 or, as the Bill's author suggests - $250,000. Who, is making a financial sacrifice at $250,000/year? More than double, nearly triple, the average family income in Canada.
You know what else, there is more that is wrong with "charities". . . the charities in this country were once advocates for the poor, and if you like, "needy" - but that is no longer allowed. If you want to advocate for the poor, a change in legislation, an increase in benefit, or a change in taxes - you better not be doing it as a charity. So, these days my money goes to organizations that advocate and educate but cannot get charitable status - the CCPA, the Media Coop(The Dominion), Rabble and Straight Goods, Greenpeace. (Well OK I gave money for Pakistan, and a couple of friends were raising money for the Stephen Lewis Foundation and N.S. Gambia and well OK - I am loose with my bucks, and I carry change to give away on the street) I certainly don't think that immediately, everyone should do this - especially when it comes to charities that work on Int'l Development but. . .
I have a suggestion - lets not have this discussion about how much to pay the Charity CEO's - lets have a progressive tax system where the rich and the corporations pay their share; lets have a decent guaranteed annual income, use tax dollars to provide needed services, and use our charity dollars to try and eliminate the $2.00 divide. (70%+ of the world lives on less than $2.00 a day) That will eliminate a need for six figure salaries for those running "charities" altogether, we can just eliminate the need for the work.
This was originally written for and posted on the Civicus Blog
Short but sweet - Just thought I should post a link to a piece in the Economist . . . as it is of interest to those defending a civil society space . . . as an internet - no longer accessible, no longer free and possibly controlled and monitored by states could be an increasing problem.
It shows a graph of country's requests to remove information . . .
[caption id="attachment_276" align="alignnone" width="595" caption="From the Economist"][/caption]
There is also a full article on controls that governments and corporations are trying to set up to have more "sovereignty" over the information on the web.
It speaks to the "balkanization and possible reduction in "freedom" and free access to and on the internet.
That article says in part:
. . . a decade and a half ago. . . [it was]prophesied [that] a digital paradise in which not only would commerce be frictionless and growth exponential, but democracy would be direct and the nation-state would no longer exist.
. . .
. . . The internet was a wide-open space, a new frontier. For the first time, anyone could communicate electronically with anyone else—globally and essentially free of charge. . .
. . .
Fifteen years after its first manifestation as a global, unifying network, it has entered its second phase: it appears to be balkanising, torn apart by three separate, but related forces.
First, governments are increasingly reasserting their sovereignty. Recently several countries have demanded that their law-enforcement agencies have access to e-mails sent from BlackBerry smart-phones. This week India, which had threatened to cut off BlackBerry service at the end of August, granted RIM, the device’s maker, an extra two months while authorities consider the firm’s proposal to comply. However, it has also said that it is going after other communication-service providers, notably Google and Skype.
Second, big IT companies are building their own digital territories, where they set the rules and control or limit connections to other parts of the internet. Third, network owners would like to treat different types of traffic differently, in effect creating faster and slower lanes on the internet.
It is still too early to say that the internet has fragmented into “internets”, but there is a danger that it may splinter along geographical and commercial boundaries.
Although not mentioned in this article, I have some similar concerns related to the explosion of "cloud" computing. Although storing all of your data, on someone else's hardware may be convenient (accessible from anywhere) it does cede control over the data to a central player/location and make it harder to keep data private. Controls are so much easier in a centralized rather than diffuse network - just another area in which Civil Society needs to be vigilant.
This year at the Civicus World Assembly, in addition to sessions that involved detailed presentations, there were three days - three afternoons from 2-5 - that were devoted to sessions with very generalized titles and that were conducted using Open Space Technology. This is not "technology" in the sense of computing, phones, tweeting or Web 2.0 generally, but is a very simple democratic facilitation technique (very "low tech" in fact. )
Open Space Technology is a facilitation method that has no structure, within a defined set of rules. I have seen it work amazingly well but I think it did not work well (although it was done very well) at the Civcus Assembly, for a number of reasons. There were three Open Space groups and my experience is based only on one; the other groups may have had more cohesion and better/more satisfying outcomes. . .
In Open Space meetings, events and organizations, participants create and manage their own agenda of parallel working sessions around a central theme of strategic importance, such as: What is the strategy, group, organization or community that all stakeholders can support and work together to create?
Usually, in my limited experience, with Open Space, the participants create the agenda, and the questions, based around a shared or mutual interest in the outcome – for instance – every one works for the same organization and wants to maximize profits, or increase impact, or improve service. In my experience, it does not work well when the outcome, that we want to achieve, is a weak or vague vision, or so large that the people in the group cannot take control of the strategies that need to be implemented to achieve the desired outcomes.
So my group was titled: Reconciling economic development, the fight against poverty and climate justice: what and how can civil society contribute?
The first day the room was full. I am guessing, perhaps more than 50-60 people were in the room, maybe more (I never thought to count). We had some opening remarks from Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International and Past General Secretary of Civicus, that were appropriately directed to the question of how the three things were related and how they intersect. I was excited. I definitely see tensions between these three – not outright hostility just a question of priorities. If you are busy trying to get the world to cut down on carbon, or save the ocean, or get rid of cars, in order to save the planet and eventually improve people's lives, even save them from climate devastation/crisis - your priority may not be working on poverty and social justice/human rights, today. But people are dying and being imprisoned and kept from organizing to improve their lives - today! Not that environmentalists don't care about that, I realize it is just not what they are working on – but everyone cannot be doing big climate change work. . . Although people do not always like the comparisons, I think that the concept is useful: someone has to be building the dam while others are pulling the drowning out of the water. The question - how do we make sure that we are all working together - no point in your diverting the river so that others will flood. . .
I felt that the agenda on day two became one in which direct action on climate change became the priority and the question that was posed and the issues represented in the title were lost by the end of day 2. The agenda was essentially “hi-jacked” buy a focus on the environment. Now I understand all the way, that the south is going to be affected first by climate change and that drought and floods are going to affect the south first, and most extremely. I wrote about it in a previous blog, but I felt that too much time was spent on individual solutions for the north – get rid of cars, use your purchases to buy a new world. . . etc. I wanted to see solutions based on green jobs and technologies for the developing world – how small farms, eco-farming, agroecology, and perma-culture could help and would be good for the environment and people. How does moving to sustainable fishing or farming or manufacturing help the move to improve democracy, human rights, gender equity and civil society space (yup – I love the big questions?)
So although unsatisfied at the end of day two, I was nevertheless interested enough to return, as I wanted to see what kind of action would emerge from some rather “deep” discussion. By Day 3 though, we were a very small group – one of the “rules” of Open Space is that “you let your feet talk” - if you are not getting anything out of your group – move to another group – or go out in the hall, or go home, but don't hang around feeling that you are wasting your time. The other principles are: 1) Whoever comes are the right people, 2) whatever happens is the only thing that could have, 3) when it starts is the right time, 4) when it's over it's over. These aren't prescriptive, according to Open Space World - they are the results of thousands of little experiments.
So none of the actions on Day 3 seemed to include all of the elements of the question – how can civil society contribute to the reconciliation of the fight against poverty, economic development and climate justice. The discussion that came closest – and the one that I worked on - was to create an index against which governments of any economic model, north or south, could be rated against, with data mostly available, and that would measure poverty, human rights and environmental impact/justice. But this action was far too big for anyone in the group to take on, although all of us were willing to work on it. There are many other measures, indexes etc., but they take many people to analyze the data and they are usually based on the OECD only, or on the U.N. development index etc. Another problem with most current indexes is that they use the current economic model of growthas an indicator – this needs to be altered to measure improved sustainability, relative poverty and inequality, and Human Rights. Other groups came up with great projects – plant a million trees in Mozambique, or distribute Diva Cups (reusable menstrual cups)to young women in a country in the global south. . . but they seemed specific and didn't seem to reconcile all three issues at all – but then I was not in those groups – feel free to tell me about your different experience in the same group.
So I enjoyed my time in the space, and think it is a great facilitation technique because it demonstrates what can arise out of an open, free democratic space. Personally, I learned some things and made some friends, but I thought that there was not enough cohesion in the group, to ask harder questions - that the overall question/goal/outcome/ of the group was ignored by the majority (or perhaps everyone was influenced by the more aggressive) in the group. It was a great use of open, democratic space – the group takes control - but a disappointment for me and I expect others. . . since the group went from so large, to so small.
I would use Open Space again for a Civicus Assembly, (though I am not involved in those decisions!) but I would suggest that either the questions be ones that would attract a group of people with a more common goal/outcome (who could debate ways of getting there); that how the actions would be implemented (web based follow up - Civicus as an organization committed to follow up on one or two most promising items?) was clearly outlined, or, alternatively, that the entire Civicus Assembly be involved in creating the agendas, groups and spaces in the first place so that we could follow the group questions to a group facilitator with a specific agenda, that I share, and want to work on. It would be unwieldy with so many people but it could also be magic.
One fifth of Pakistan is underwater, millions of people are homeless. . . the scale is so large that it is nearly impossible for me to fathom. (I feel a shift in the force, Luke) It is a large climate crisis.
In the event that you have any doubt that the Pakistan Floods (or Russian fires) are related to climate change see here (really, the jet stream has stalled!?) and here and here.
The year 2010 now has the most national extreme heat records for a single year--eighteen. These nations comprise 19% of the total land area of Earth. This is the largest area of Earth's surface to experience all-time record high temperatures in any single year in the historical record. Looking back at the past decade, which was the hottest decade in the historical record, seventy-five counties set extreme hottest temperature records (33% of all countries.) For comparison, fifteen countries set extreme coldest temperature records over the past ten years (6% of all countries).
On the last morning of the 2010 Civicus World Assembly, Kumi Naidoo put it all in perspective for me. I cannot quote him exactly, but the important concept is that "aid" is not really aid - that's a misnomer. It should not be called aid, it is payment of a debt to the south from the north. We, in the north, have destroyed/warmed the climate, but the south pays the price, or at least they are going to pay it first,. They have, for the most part, the least economic resilience and ability, to save people from climate change - e.g floods and other environmental disasters, causing crop failure and wiping out homes. Over 300,000 people (before Pakistan) were already called "climate refugees". The north (it is very hard to say "we" when I have been fighting environmental and social justice issues for 35 years, but what else can I say?) warmed the earth (and continues to do so) by literally (and liberally) spewing green house gases, but we also bury our toxic waste in the south, and generally make garbage that others are expected to clean up, or put up with. At our rate of consumption in the north, we would need 5 planets to bring everyone to this northern standard of living. So we ALL need to change - but individual action, though laudable, is not enough.
Now, it is time to pay, to make reparations - as the south is going to pay the price first (we will all suffer eventually as record temperatures in Russia and Finland this summer demonstrate) and eventually there is little anyone can do. . .
So we all need to take individual actions to stop creating GHG's and decrease our own carbon footprints - get out of our cars, be careful about what we consume - want less. . . but, in addition, we have to come together to take collective action, to make sure that we make corporations and governments work together to save the planet, and we have to act quickly.
Things are clearly heating up. In the north, we have a debt to pay. It is notjust climate of course, we owe a debt that we should/must repay - in Haiti for instance, among other countries of the Global South. Exploitation and outright theft of people, resources and labour have been rampant. The injustice is now on such a massive scale that it is hard for ordinary people to see. But it is important that the education and the action begin.
This post was originally written and published on the blog for the Civicus Assembly
What causes rising food prices? And how do we stop it from outpacing inflation?
Some suggest that recent increases in global food prices are being driven by increases in the world's human population - that the increases, in both, are linked and inevitable. By their account our population simply outstrips the capacity of our environment to support sustainable food production. There are those who believe that mandated, legislated zero population growth is the only way we can ensure enough for all and keep the planet from being "used up".
While slowing or stopping population growth will likely assist in meeting the sustainability of the planet and people in the long term, it’s unlikely that long-term population growth is the driving factor of recent food price fluctuations. If population growth was the engine of inflation in food prices, one would expect a gradual increase rather than leaps and spikes.
Other explanations are more complex. They point to the role played in food price energy costs - e.g. fertilizer, farm equipment and food distribution. These links are the centre of a recent report by the World Bank. Energy does impact the price of food, no question, but is it the primary driver, given that prices took another big jump in the last 6 months, without similar changes in the cost of oil?
There is, as well, the contribution of issues at the supply end, related to poor harvests (which can cause hoarding by both farmers and consumers), or changes in crops grown. Those issues, are strongly dependent on environmental factors, including flood or drought, but also because choices about what to grow and where to grow it can be (sometimes unreasonably) influenced by national policies and subsidies. This is the narrative focused on by a recent story in the Financial Times detailing the poor grain harvest in Russia this year, and the subsequent global rise of grain prices, especially of flour. Russia’s decision to ban grain exports in response has resulted in shortages elsewhere. The Times suggests that:
Tight supplies, changing weather patterns and rising demand in emerging economies have all contributed to rising concerns about food security.
Not a word in these explanations, however, about what Civicus website visitors identified as the most likely culprit -- financial speculation. And, all of these explanations also ignore other dimensions of each of these issues including the contribution of climate change (as does a recent BBC report decreasing on rice harvests) monoculture, overuse of chemical fertilizers and herbicides and pesticides, not to mention GMO's . . . and a failure to develop agricultural policies that are going to meet the needs of those that farm - rather than far away consumers.
A July 2010 article in Harper's , entitled The Food Bubble: How Wall Street Starved Millions and Got Away with It, the author, Frederick Kaufman, argues pretty convincingly that the creation of a commodities index for grain helped fuel speculation, and that as food prices rose so did the index. The short version, which he presents in an interview with DemocracyNow, of his analysis is that massive investments by banks in wheat futures led to prices that were not 8%, but up to eight times higherthan usual. The result? He says in part:
FREDERICK KAUFMAN: How did this work? Instead of a buy-and-sell order, like everybody does in these markets, they just started buying. It’s called "going long." They started going long on wheat futures. OK? And every time one of these contracts came due, they would do something called "rolling it over" into the next contract. So they would take all those buy promises they had made and say, "OK, we still—we’re just going to—we’ll buy more later. And plus we’re going to buy more now." And they kept on buying and buying and buying and buying and accumulating this unprecedented, this historically unprecedented pile of long-only wheat futures . . . Now, a lot of people are saying, "Oh, it was biofuel production. It was drought in Australia. It was floods in Kazakhstan." Let me tell you, hard red wheat generally trades between $3 and $6 per sixty-pound bushel. It went up to $12, then $15, then $18. Then it broke $20. And on February 25th, 2008, hard red spring futures settled at $25 per bushel. . .
. . .
And, of course, the irony here is that in 2008, it was the greatest wheat-producing year in world history. The world produced more wheat in 2008 than ever before.
. . .
JUAN GONZALEZ: And the result was, as the price went up, that there were food riots around the world.
On addressing the contribution of speculation to 2008’s food price increases, and subsequent food riots, however, Kaufman is not alone. here’s an excerpt from the conclusions of another recent report from the World Bank, Placing the 2006/08 Commodity Price Boom into Perspective:
In this paper we examined three key factors whose role has been somewhat controversial: speculation, the growth of demand for food commodities by emerging economies and the role of biofuels. We conjecture that index fund activity (one type of “speculative” activity among the many that the literature refers to) played a key role during the 2008 price spike. Biofuels played some role too, but much less than initially thought. And we find no evidence that alleged stronger demand by emerging economies had any effect on world prices. Although tentative, these conclusions provide insights into the determinants of
the future path of commodity prices, which is still uncertain.
Food and markets - prices, sovereignty, security, availability - are all connected and all complex. Raj Patel briefly outlines some of the causes here. Speculation has contributed, surely, but Patel points that so too has the exposure to the volatility inherent in exposure to world markets as a result of liberalization of trade:
Food Rebellions! suggests that to solve the food crisis, we must change the global food system — from the bottom up and from the top down. On one hand, farmers utilising sustainable approaches to production need to be supported, and farmer-to-farmer agroecological knowledge must be spread. At the same time, food and farm advocates need to work in local, national and international policy arenas to open dialogue, demand transparency and change the 'rules' currently holding back agroecological alternatives. The book frames the current food crisis as a unique opportunity to develop productive local food systems as engines for sustainable economic development. Hunger and poverty, the authors insist, can be eliminated by democratising food systems and respecting people's right to safe, nutritious and culturally appropriate food and to food-producing resources — in short, by advancing food sovereignty.
There are many other possible answers…what do you think? What is the most important cause of increasing food prices? What can we do to make sure that everyone can afford, and ultimately has enough, to eat?
Following publication of this blog I received this article: Food Commodities Speculation. . . which does talk about the rise of food prices based on speculation. It was written by:
Olivier De Schutter was appointed the UN Special Rapporteur on the
right to food in March 2008 by the United Nations Human Rights
Council. He is independent from any government or organization, and he
reports to the Human Rights Council and to the UN General Assembly.
All reports are available on http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/food/
annual.htm. See http://www.srfood.org for a thematic classification
of all reports and statements of the Special Rapporteur. The Special
Rapporteur can be contacted on srfood@ohchr.org
This blog was originally written and posted for the Civicus World Assembly.
There is a movement rising that seeks to organize the world in a new (and old) way. It involves two concepts - promoting "the commons" and fighting "enclosure".
The global commons is the set of natural resources, basic services, public spaces, cultural traditions, and other essentials of life and society that are, or should be, part of a public trust to be enjoyed by all people and cherished for the planet’s well-being. Another way to conceive of these assets is how it is said in Spanish: el bien común, the common good. Behind the commons is the fundamental idea that life, information, human relationships, popular culture, and the earth’s riches are sacrosanct and not for sale.
Today, all over the world, pieces of our commons are being commodified and/or privatized by the powerful and rich, in deals made possible by corporate trade accords and government. Being snapped up in the giant tag sale now underway is, well, pretty much everything: the creation of babies, health care, indigenous or shared knowledge, public radio and television, schools, human organs, genetic mapping, control of the use of plants and animals, water, and air. (Yes, air. Beyond the recent fad of oxygen bars, carbon trading is the buying and selling, effectively, of air). And that’s a limited list.
Naturally, people aren’t just taking this sitting down. They are inventing ways to ensure that society’s and nature’s wealth remains for the use of the community and for the sustenance of the earth. Collectively, the endeavors can be seen as the global commons movement.
In a book from 2008, called The Magna Carta Manifesto, Peter Linebaugh writes about the erosion of rights, once clearly established, for the many, mostly western societies, which are based on "common law." The book "blurb" as linked above says:
This remarkable book shines a fierce light on the current state of liberty and shows how longstanding restraints against tyranny—and the rights of habeas corpus, trial by jury, and due process of law, and the prohibition of torture—are being abridged. In providing a sweeping history of Magna Carta, the source of these protections since 1215, this powerful book demonstrates how these ancient rights are repeatedly laid aside when the greed of privatization, the lust for power, and the ambition of empire seize a state. Peter Linebaugh draws on primary sources to construct a wholly original history of the Great Charter and its scarcely-known companion, the Charter of the Forest, which was created at the same time to protect the subsistence rights of the poor.
You can see a rather lengthy, but fascinating, interview with Peter Linebaugh, about the book, and the concepts here:
Today, struggles to defend "the commons", range from First Nations, in Canada, fighting to protect the land from the oil sands exploitation, to the Adavasi people in India, or indigenous people in South America, having their land exploited by mines and dams, without compensation (because the land does not have a deed in the name of an individual, it is a commons for the people to use, as needed and not individually owned.) Unfortunately any "commons" is too often thought of as as just land, water, resources etc. that no one owns. . . yet.
The Commons though, conceptually, means that we all own the resources, feel that they are ours, and therefore we are all stewards of the resources, and have a need to look after them. So it is not just a way to get everyone's needs met, but is also a way to protect the earth. See: Earth Commons Rising and/or (warning direct link to english pdf) The Commons Manifesto
Just for fun, (and because it can be motivating) I include here a musical interlude -- Struggles against enclosure and to hold onto the commons spawned movements in Great Britain from the 12th-20th century in Britain. One 17th century movement called the Diggers or the True Levellers. . . who wanted to eliminate enclosure and work the land "in common" and on the commons - planting vegetables on so-called "wasteland", are well known.
There is also a (relatively) new organization called "On the Commons" that says of the idea of a commons based society:
A commons-based society refers to a shift in values and policies away from the market-based system that dominates modern society, especially over the past 30 years. The foundation of the market is narrowly focused on private wealth, while the commons is built upon what we all share—air, water, public spaces, public health, public services, the Internet, cultural endowments and much more.
One of the most compelling ideas being raised today is the possibility of evolving from a market-based society to a commons-based society. The commons has always been an element of human civilization. But its central role in sustaining all societies has recently been rediscovered, inspiring new lines of thinking in fields ranging from high technology to public health to business.
A commons-based society is one that values and protects commons assets, managing them for the benefit of everyone. Market-based solutions would be valuable tools in a commons-based society, as long as they do not undermine the workings of the commons itself.
Is "the commons" a useful concept? Can we return to, or create, a new world where there is a real "commons"? Combined with the elimination of enclosure (that is the increasing privatization or "ownership" of once free resources like water, but also corporate ownership of words and art,and the potential death of "net neutrality") development of non-monopoly markets, an unfettered civil society, and real democracy, it helps me envision a world that might be organized in a different way, and one in which civic engagement would be easy, necessary and effective. As, Jack Layton, a Canadian politician used to say: Don't let them tell you it can't be done."
A few weeks ago, in India, the Supreme Court ruled that it was not just or fair for women, who are "housewives' (or their families), to be compensated, at a substantially lower rate than men and/or the "employed", when they are in a motor vehicle accident. But, more surprisingly, the justices said, that, seeing home-based work, as without economic value, was tantamount to gender bias and should not be tolerated. According to an article in Tehelka, an Indian magazine :
Seeing women’s home-based work as without economic value, the judges said, was tantamount to gender bias, and they suggested that not only the particular law in question (the Motor Vehicles Act) but also others should be changed, and the question of the value of women’s work should be taken up by Parliament. In a further radical step, they cited a report by an NGO that values Indian women’s homebased work at $612.8 billion per year!
It was back in 1988 that Marilyn Waring wrote a book (If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics) about how women's work was unpaid and uncounted, in the gross domestic product, of any country. You can see the original NFB video, "Who's Counting, Marilyn Waring on Sex, Lies and Global Economics", from 1995, at: http://www.nfb.ca/film/whos_counting/ or here:
15 years on, and her analysis is still true. We could debate her conclusions and suggestions for remedy, but there has not been much improvement in the counting of women's unpaid work in any country. There is also a good overview of the issue of women's unpaid work in Canada and around the world at: Women and the Economy.
At least the "amount" of unpaid (mostly women's) work is now being measured in the census of some countries - but that is about to change - perhaps for the better in India, but for the worse in Canada. It is a side note, but an interesting one, that a Google News India search reveals only the Tehelka story and one in the Economic Times (Times of India), about this judgement, at all. [later: found one more story, actually a "comment" written by an MP at - http://www.deccanchronicle.com/dc-comment/women-prejudice-823 - I wonder if there are more I missed?]
India is moving forward. Clarity about the work done by women, and all unpaid labour, is increasing; the analysis is increasing and, not surprisingly, action on the economic and ethical implications are increasing. In Canada, the clarity is being removed, the data won't be collected, the question won't even be asked.
There has been a public controversy raging in the last few weeks, over changing the so-called "long form" census, from a mandatory census form, to a voluntary “national household survey” that is NOT mandatory (for which there has been universal condemnation, including the resignation of the chief statistician, and yet the government has not changed their minds, and do not seem likely to do so.) But, lost in THAT controversy is another.
All but lost in the controversy over the Conservatives’ impending elimination of the mandatory long-form census is how, in the proposed $30 million dollar replacement — the voluntary National Household Survey — Question 33 from the long form has been cut.
Question 33 (let’s call it Q.33) is a three-part query that has been in place since Canada made commitments at the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing. The question gathered data on how much time people spent on unpaid work: domestic chores, child care and attending to the needs of elderly relatives and friends. It helped make Canada a world leader in “time-use” data.
The results have also been showing how women are faring, socially and economically.
For example, the results indicate that despite a higher volume and percentage of women in the workforce over the past 20 years, changes between men and women in respective unpaid workloads have merely been “marginal.”
Based on information gathered in the 2006 census, StatsCan reports that, on average, “Women spend about an hour a day more on basic housework chores than their male counterparts. In 2005, women aged 25 to 54 averaged 2.4 hours daily cooking, cleaning and doing other basic unpaid household chores, compared with 1.4 hours per day for men in this age range.”
Two-thirds of Canada’s unpaid work is being performed by women. No matter how the value of that is evaluated —anywhere between 30 to 45 per cent of Canada’s $1.5 trillion GDP. That’s a heck of a lot of productivity that is being completely discounted.
Clearly women's work contributes to productive work and "the economy", everywhere, even if the numbers re participating in the formal economy are different. For example: Only 18% of women in India work "outside the home". But it is 2010 and time to count women's productivity, paid or unpaid, around the world, as part of what makes economies function smoothly. It is time that, looking after people, should be counted, around the world.
There are a lot of other things that should be counted as economically productive, and plenty that should not. See for example, Raj Patel on the BP oil spill. I will save those issues, however, for another blog.
I wrote previously, broadly, about Economic Justice - but the themes of 2010 Civicus Assembly are also about advocating for, and implementing, solutions. Some solutions are positive, they build on our successes, and try and create the conditions for, and models of, the world that we would like to see - a more equitable and just world. Examples abound, and I could have chosen many others, in CIVICUS member groups, and around the world - including such projects as: increasing all aspects of the "Solidarity Economy", working on building housing and improving access to food and markets,finding sustainable ways of living - by creating sustainable agricultural, forestry and fishing practices, or in a myriad of ways available to build community, civil society participation, and sustainability.
But, sometimes we have to stop the attacks, the damage, the inequality, the injustice, and we are forced into a defensive or aggressive (but non-violent) posture - we cannot wait for a chance to join with others, globally or locally, to build the world that we want to see eventually - sometimes we have to act now and we have to STOP actions: be it, whaling, bulldozing homes in the West Bank and Gaza, ripping up the land and polluting the water like in the Canadian Tar Sands, or stealing land from peasant and/or indigenous peoples. And for that, we have a limited number of options - letter writing, protesting in the street, PR through social networks or earned media, lobbying governments, and internationally agencies, and working in elections . . . and, also, civil disobedience.
In the video (see video below) Kumi says, in part, "At a time, when civil disobedience appears to be the only way we can actually push our governments, Greenpeace's methodology [of non-violent direct action] offers us the most promise. Because, right now, the only possibility that we have to get our governments to listen to us and to act with the urgency that the situation calls for is to ensure that they are constantly being pushed."
The Canadian Environmental law Centre at the University of Victoria, has a handbook for Canadians particularly for struggles in the forest industry, called: Civil Disobedience: a Legal Handbook for Activists. In it they define and contextualize civil disobedience:
Civil disobedience can be defined as deliberate disobedience of the law out of obedience to a higher authority such as religion, morality or an environmentalist ethic. Civil disobedience has existed in various forms for as long as people have lived in organized societies governed by the rule of law. Its primary purpose is usually to change the law or society's views on a particular issue. It is a public action intended to have a political effect. Civil disobedience can be defined by certain criteria:
it is employed only after other means have failed
it is non-violent
it is undertaken openly
its participants are willing to submit to prosecution and punishment for breaking the law
it is aimed at publicizing and challenging injustice
it is not employed for coercive or intimidating reasons
Civil disobedience is seen as morally justifiable if it contributes to the social good and is performed by someone who is well intentioned and well informed. Reasoned and thoughtful resistance through civil disobedience can often serve as a check on the political system and prevent serious departures from justice. The fact that one can engage in principled disobedience of the law is generally a sign of a nearly just society, for in an unjust society, dissenting voices may be simply crushed. In a relatively just society, the use of civil disobedience can be an effective and morally justifiable way to change laws or government policies.
So, do we need to agree with this definition? Do we need to have a debate about how and when civil disobedience is a useful and productive tactic? Lots of people being arrested and jailed (as in the G20 in Toronto June, 2010 - although they were not for the most part practicing civil disobedience but were legally protesting) is not much use, if all of the activists are simply imprisoned, and for many years. And, yet, being willing to accept the punishment that goes with the disobedience, was traditionally part of civil disobedience (as it demonstrates one's agreement with the rule of law, in general, just not the one you are protesting!) along with non-violence.
If we are using civil disobedience, what principles are important, and what - if you use it in a country which has no functioning "rule of law" or where inequality and or discrimination against certain groups is rampant - is the role of civil disobedience? Is it still a valid choice?
Some of these issues, and the increasing criminalization of any kind of dissent, will be explored in a workshop on Day 3 of the Assembly called W25: Activism is Not a Crime.
What do you think about Civil Disobedience? Have you used it? Are you willing to be arrested or jailed for your beliefs? To save the planet? To save a people? To save yourself and your family?
Do you know the whorfian hypothesis? I bought it hook, line and sinker in my first year at university (anthropology major) - it suggests that language that we speak, affects our thoughts in clear ways - it makes us how we are - that is, that what you speak is what/how you think. In the Whorf hypothesis, one cannot think outside the confines of one's language. Examples I remember from University, include that the Tibetans do not have nouns - the table is not a noun or thing in the way that we think of things as solid - but the table, in Tibetan, is tabling. . . and the Hopi have no tenses (complicated but this - no tenses in Hopi - turns out to not be entirely true)
I am not even sure that it is true about the Tibetan language - - and I am not sure that I want to propose what that might do to your thinking - pretty profound. . . but it would obviously make you see the world differently - everything in your world is in a state of being. . . Now having said that - keep in mind that the wharfian hypothesis has become very controversial and not everyone even agrees that a language can restrict or bend your thought patterns.
So I was thinking about the whorfian hypothesis today, and about language - and language learning - because I am studying Hindi - and I realized that, in Hindi - lots of words (I don't know how many as I am still in "basic" Hindi . . . ) are pronounced differently if you are a man or a woman. So for instance a man says: "I understand" - he says: "Main somajthaha hoon." But a woman says "Main somajtahi hoon." I was wondering if that is true in Arabic, or in other languages where there is more gender separation than in English. I know it is true in Thai - any other languages? In what languages do men and women speak a different language? And does it affect the way that the culture/world sees gender - its importance or non-importance? Blows my hypothesis out of the water if Arabic doesn't separate gender. . . although it could be the exception to the rule!
I may be onto something here (apparently not an original thought) Found an overview of the researcher's study - mentioned in the Economist article which says:
Does treating chairs as masculine and beds as feminine in the grammar make Russian speakers think of chairs as being more like men and beds as more like women in some way? It turns out that it does. In one study, we asked German and Spanish speakers to describe objects having opposite gender assignment in those two languages. The descriptions they gave differed in a way predicted by grammatical gender. For example, when asked to describe a "key" — a word that is masculine in German and feminine in Spanish — the German speakers were more likely to use words like "hard," "heavy," "jagged," "metal," "serrated," and "useful," whereas Spanish speakers were more likely to say "golden," "intricate," "little," "lovely," "shiny," and "tiny." To describe a "bridge," which is feminine in German and masculine in Spanish, the German speakers said "beautiful," "elegant," "fragile," "peaceful," "pretty," and "slender," and the Spanish speakers said "big," "dangerous," "long," "strong," "sturdy," and "towering." This was true even though all testing was done in English, a language without grammatical gender. The same pattern of results also emerged in entirely nonlinguistic tasks (e.g., rating similarity between pictures). And we can also show that it is aspects of language per se that shape how people think: teaching English speakers new grammatical gender systems influences mental representations of objects in the same way it does with German and Spanish speakers. Apparently even small flukes of grammar, like the seemingly arbitrary assignment of gender to a noun, can have an effect on people's ideas of concrete objects in the world.
One of the themes of this year's CIVICUS assembly, in Montreal, is Economic Justice. What is economic justice? I am sure that there are some accepted definitions, but, none of them come from economics! So, my definition is: simply ensuring that everyone has access to, due to the fair allocation of: land, jobs, money, even opportunity; that no one is denied water, food, a home, a job. . . the basic needs and more .. . because they fit a "category" of people that are to be exploited or robbed. One should not be denied the right to basic needs (including education and healthcare) because one is black, lives in Africa, or South Asia, are a woman or a child, or belong to the wrong class, caste or tribe. So one needs the freedom to participate, to demand, to lobby, to organize and one needs education and a kind of optimism -- that things can be fairly allocated, can be just, can be distributed differently.
One of the things that holds back economic justice is a failure to consider all economic models. Most (but not all) of the world has adopted some form of capitalism. We say (at least in North America) "the economy" as if we mean it is some unchangeable force of nature. Jim Stanford - a Canadian economist - wrote a book called "Economics for Everyone". In it, he argues that we have a capitalist economic system and he writes about how it works. He does not propose socialism, or any other model, but does suggest that we should all understand that it is just one possible model, and that the constructs underpinning the "economy" can be changed. He also suggests that we should understand how "the economy" works, in order not be bamboozled by governments and economists into thinking that a restructuring of priorities and social organization are impossible.
He has a great website to accompany the book - Economics for Everyone - in which he says ". . . It provides a comprehensive description (and critique) of free-market economics." This is not your usual "economics text" but is written for the average "activist" to understand. The site actually includes slides, study guides, teacher's notes etc to run a course on how the economy works, and in my own experience, Jimbo is absolutely willing to help if you are trying to put the course together.
One of the things that he does not cover is those things that are not counted in the economy but should be. . . As Einstein famously said: Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
For that, I turn to a great book by Raj Patel - "The Value of Nothing" - again there is a website to accompany the book - The Value of Nothing - that site says in part:
Opening with Oscar Wilde’s observation that “nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing,” Patel shows how our faith in prices as a way of valuing the world is misplaced. He reveals the hidden ecological and social costs of a hamburger (as much as $200), and asks how we came to have markets in the first place. Both the corporate capture of government and our current financial crisis, Patel argues, are a result of our democratically bankrupt political system.
In what way? Because, he argues, in most countries corporations have become defined as "legal people" , and, because, in addition, we have been engaging for thirty years in "enclosure" -- owning and allowing ownership of more and more "things" - intellectual property, common lands, seed, water etc. More and more people are being ignored. We know, as he says, quoting Oscar Wilde, "the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing". He says (p. 172/73):
"over the past thirty years, the accelerating price of enclosure, and the increasing scale of the theft, have brought our planet to the edge of destruction. Internationally, environmental costs have been shunted from rich to poor, most notably though not exclusively from global warming. A recent report offers a very conservative estimate of the number of people harmed by climate change today at 325 million, every year. The number of deaths from weather changes alone is set to exceed 500,000 people per year.. . and most of these deaths will happen among those who have had the least to do with causing pollution, people whose countries were colonized by the very same powers that have caused this new catastrophe. . . Handing the matter over to capitalism is, however, likely to prove as good an idea as asking the iceberg to fix the Titanic."
Patel does not argue that there can be no markets. On the contrary he argues that they have always existed and that what has changed is the way that we organize markets, what has value in them, and how we decide what to work on. Unfortunately too often our political decisions are based on profit, the marketplace and return on investment. He does say that alternatives are difficult to implement - how do we remove "corporate rapacity" from government and "the bleak weight of consumerism from our political imaginations." However, he does suggest that it IS possible and worth working on.
Great video overview of his thesis at:
Speaking of great videos and having just mentioned the weight of consumerism - another site, if you have not seen it, that is worth watching is:
the Story of Stuff. In it, Annie Leonard not only tells us what is wrong with the way that we are organized economically - but at least for me, she offers some direction for solution, including the fact that you don't have to work on everything - but need to working on some part of the "fix". . . the whole video is 20 minutes long - but it is worth it! Please take the time.
The site, with other issues , videos and resources is at: Story of Stuff
If economic justice is going to be achieved then we in the north (or, if you prefer the west or the so-called "developed" nations) have an obligation to pay our share, and more than our share now, since we have, as a community, been stealing from the rest of the world for a couple of centuries. As an example you can see my post on Haiti - Haiti - which describe the theft from Haiti, and it is just one example.
All of these issues need to be debated, discussed and consideration has to be given, re how to improve economic justice and distribution. Can Canadians ever demand, in large numbers, that we: democratize our economic system; that we give up some privilege/luxury (out of the car and onto the bus . . . people, eat local. . . people) to ensure better international distribution; that we collect taxes, but use them to help others we have traditionally stolen from; that we agree to provide a lot more in aid/development assistance; that we reduce our carbon footprint and allow others to increase theirs; to more radically open our doors to economic and climate migrants?. . . If not I fear the world is headed to overheating, plankton loss, and ocean death, and eventually the end of human life.
