Showing posts with label Asian Black Brown Indigenous experience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Asian Black Brown Indigenous experience. Show all posts

Thursday, October 13, 2011

On the importance of appreciating intersectionality if one cares about remedying or ending the oppression of women

image is from here

Curiously, obnoxiously, or infuriatingly, depending on your political location and tolerance for stupidity, some whites are into dissing the concept of "intersectionality" as post-modern nonsense designed to unnecessarily or obfuscate the oppression of women by men, or of poor men by rich men, or of people of color by whites.

We might note that for people oppressed by race, class, region, religion, sexuality, and gender, "intersectionality" may well be one of the most useful conceptual tools for describing one's own experience of being in the world. But for the less complexly oppressed, it may well seem like a messy addition to the language of anti-oppression and liberation work.

I've been hearing of whites dissing this term most of all: class-privileged, non-Lesbian, regionally and educationally privileged whites at that. How convenient for them to disrespect and dismiss a way of understanding the world's human populations that makes more visible women who are not white, class-privileged, and advantaged structurally in other ways as well. How white supremacist to pretend that such a term is unnecessary and needlessly distracting from the "core" issue: men's oppression of [white] women. Also, without utlising the concept of intersectionality to the problem of women's oppression, we might (dangerously) be able to ignore how white women and men across race oppress women of color.

For the whites who only listen to other whites, who insist the term isn't appropriate or useful--or necessary--in the struggle to end patriarchal and male supremacist atrocities, who won't take the work of Kimberlé Crenshaw and so many other radical womanists and feminists seriously, I recommend they review this lecture by a prominent U.S. white radical feminist. MacKinnon has, herself, problematically discussed the condition of white women in an essay critiqued for appearing to minimise the political meaning and racist-misogynist oppression acted out of the whiteness of white women--against women of color. See *here* for that. And see *here* for the PDF which contains a response/critique.

If anyone obtains the transcript of text of MacKinnon's lecture, I'd be interested to read it.
Oct 12
Intersectionalities: Theorizing Multiple Discrimination, Identity and Power
Speaker

Catharine A. MacKinnon, University of Michigan
Location

William and June Warren Hall, Room 207
Time

6:30 pm - 8:30 pm
Description

Sponsored by the Center for Intersectionality and Social Policy Studies and co-sponsored by The Center for Gender and Sexuality Law

Catharine A. MacKinnon is the Elizabeth A. Long Professor of Law at the University of Michigan. She is among the most heavily cited scholars publishing in the English language, and is world renowned for her groundbreaking work in the areas of feminist jurisprudence, pornography and civil rights, and politicizing rape and other forms of gender-based violence as a "gender crime" in the context of international human rights law. Since 2008, she has served as the Special Gender Advisor to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (The Hague).

*Introduction by Beth Ribet, Research Director, Center for Intersectionality and Social Policy Studies [source for this: http://iserp.columbia.edu/content/intersectionalities-theorizing-multiple-discrimination-identity-and-power ]

Saturday, April 23, 2011

What CNN (the CRAP News Network) won't tell you about What Terrorism Is and Who the Terrorists (and Terrorised) Are--nor will any CRAP-loaded media

image is from here

There's a lot of propaganda in reports that come from corporate racist patriarchal media. CNN is in that group. What CNN cannot and won't tell you is this:

Christian-identified people, regardless of whether or not they are Christian, commit the most acts of religious warfare and terrorism. And the religious groups they target most are Jews and Muslims.

Men commit the most acts of gendered warfare and terrorism. The groups they target most are women and girls.

Whites commit the most acts of raced warfare and terrorism. The ethnic groups they target most are Black, Brown, Asian, and Indigenous. In particular, within the U.S., African Americans, American Indians, and Latina/os are under constant threat, are harassed, are threatened, arrested, imprisoned, deported, and killed, with no accountability for the perpetrators who, disproportionately and predominantly are white Christian het men.

With regard to sexual orientation, het men commit the most terrorism against any and all people determined by het men to not be het enough or manly enough. This includes women and girls, transgender and transsexual people, lesbians and gay men, girly boys, feminine men, and masculine women.

Economically, the wealthy commit acts of class warfare and terrorism unrelentingly against the poor and working people.

Militarily and regionally, the U.S. government and its paid operatives (covert terrorists) are committing the most blatant and unrelenting acts of terrorism against many people, most especially, currently, in Central Asia and the Middle East. According to what follows, however, you're supposed to think the most dangerous place to be is Puerto Rico. (Not.)

U.S. wealthy white men are the leaders involved in systematic racist mass murder and genocide happening on U.S. (stolen) soil and off-shore. Disproportionately, Indigenous and other poor populations are poisoned by radioactive waste from nuclear power plants. It is poor and working people, not the wealthy, who are killed in the extraction processes of getting fossil fuels out of the Earth.

Only the rich are committing acts of global and regional ecocide--of the air, water, and land.

Rarely to never are any of these predatory terrorists are held accountable for their crimes against humanity and non-human life, including the Earth. And if anyone tries to terrify them, or threaten them, the threateners may be and sometimes are swiftly executed. For example, women who stand up to their husbands or who threaten to leave, and then do leave. It is then the woman are most at risk of being hunted down and slaughtered.

The article below relies on FBI statistics and utilises pie-charts to make its points.

What we must note is that Christians, whites, men, and "the U.S government" won't and aren't seen as "terrorists" ever, as such. Why aren't all the acts of men's battery, rape, pimping, trafficking, and enslavement of women and girls considered "terroristic events"? Are these actions not terrifying? For whom, exactly, are they not a noteworthy event? Is it not terrifying to a whole class of people (women and girls)? Does the terrorism and coercive to sadistic control of one half of the world's population become irrelevant to agencies tracking violence and acts of domestic and international aggression and hostility?

What the following report does is focus on Latinos (focus on Puerto Ricans), U.S. Jews, and U.S. Muslims--even if to not they aren't as terroristic as the U.S. media pretends. Is "anti-Muslim terrorism", committed by U.S. Christians, even a category of atrocity according to corporate news media and the U.S. government?

So let's review, shall we? This is who ISN'T terrorised systematically or routinely: whites, het men, the rich, and the U.S. as a nation. This would be obvious if anyone was actually paying attention to who is being terrorised--with it being named as such.

With all of this in mind, please read on. The rest of this post's content may be linked back to by clicking on the title just below.

All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren’t

Posted on 20 January 2010 by Danios
terrorism_has_no_religion

CNN recently published an article entitled Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated; according to a study released by Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “the terrorist threat posed by radicalized Muslim-Americans has been exaggerated.”

Yet, Americans continue to live in mortal fear of radical Islam, a fear propagated and inflamed by right wing Islamophobes.  If one follows the cable news networks, it seems as if all terrorists are Muslims.  It has even become axiomatic in some circles to chant: “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.” Muslims and their “leftist dhimmi allies” respond feebly, mentioning Waco as the one counter example, unwittingly affirming the belief that “nearly all terrorists are Muslims.”

But perception is not reality.  The data simply does not support such a hasty conclusion.  On the FBI’s official website, there exists a chronological list of all terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil from the year 1980 all the way to 2005.  That list can be accessed here (scroll down all the way to the bottom).


Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, 
According to FBI Database
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database

According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%).  These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion.  These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company.

Yet notice the disparity in media coverage between the two.  It would indeed be very interesting to construct a corresponding pie chart that depicted the level of media coverage of each group.  The reason that Muslim apologists and their “leftist dhimmi allies” cannot recall another non-Islamic act of terrorism other than Waco is due to the fact that the media gives menial (if any) coverage to such events.  If a terrorist attack does not fit the “Islam is the perennial and existential threat of our times” narrative, it is simply not paid much attention to, which in a circuitous manner reinforces and “proves” the preconceived narrative.  It is to such an extent that the average American cannot remember any Jewish or Latino terrorist; why should he when he has never even heard of the Jewish Defense League or the Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros?  Surely what he does not know does not exist!

The Islamophobes claim that Islam is intrinsically a terrorist religion.  The proof?  Well, just about every terrorist attack is Islamic, they retort.  Unfortunately for them, that’s not quite true.  More like six percent.  Using their defunct logic, these right wingers ought now to conclude that nearly all acts of terrorism are committed by Latinos (or Jews).  Let them dare say it…they couldn’t; it would be political and social suicide to say such a thing. Most Americans would shut down such talk as bigoted; yet, similar statements continue to be said of Islam, without any repercussions.

The Islamophobes live in a fantasy world where everyone is supposedly too “politically correct” to criticize Islam and Muslims.  Yet, the reality is the exact opposite: you can get away with saying anything against the crescent.  Can you imagine the reaction if I said that Latinos should be profiled because after all they are the ones who commit the most terrorism in the country?  (For the record: I don’t believe in such profiling, because I am–unlike the right wing nutters–a believer in American ideals.)

The moral of the story is that Americans ought to calm down when it comes to Islamic terrorism.  Right wingers always live in mortal fear–or rather, they try to make you feel that way.  In fact, Pamela Geller (the queen of internet Islamophobia) literally said her mission was to “scare the bejeezus outta ya.” Don’t be fooled, and don’t be a wuss.  You don’t live in constant fear of radicalized Latinos (unless you’re Lou Dobbs), even though they commit seven times more acts of terrorism than Muslims in America.  Why then are you wetting yourself over Islamic radicals?  In the words of Cenk Uygur: you’re at a ten when you need to be at a four.  Nobody is saying that Islamic terrorism is not a matter of concern, but it’s grossly exaggerated.

Related Posts:
Europol report: All terrorists are Muslims…Except the 99.6% that aren’t
RAND report: Threat of homegrown jihadism exaggerated, Zero U.S. civilians killed since 9/11
Update:
A reader by the name of Dima added:
The FBI Terrorism Report shows…[that] the highest number of terrorist incidents in the U.S. by region (90) took place in Puerto Rico.
Second Update:
An Islamophobe commented on this article, saying that the statistics are flawed because the FBI included small acts such as “stealing rats from a lab” as an act of terrorism.  Of course, this is patently false.  Here is a breakdown of the terrorist attacks by type (the pie chart is from the FBI’s official website and can be accessed here):
Terrorism by Event, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database
Terrorism by Event, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Capitalism is Broke Because Rich White Het Men Are Looting It: Details here, by Catherine Austin Fitts

Corporate capitalism is dying, folks. And well it should. It only exists to make the rich richer and the poor and working and middle classes more and more exploited, traumatised, and insecure to the point of being terrified of losing home and livelihood. (Not only the middle class.) It only exists in the Global North to loot the Global South. It exists to enslave, rape, and murder women and girls. It profits by murdering the Earth and all live on it. If you don't accept this, you are living in denial. That's a requirement of corporate capitalism: you living in denial.

Please click on the title below to link back to the activist website which is where I found what follows.


Catherine Austin Fitts: The Looting Of America
Financial terrorism and the war on the middle class.
Former Assistant Secretary of Housing under George H.W. Bush Catherine Austin Fitts blows the whistle on how the financial terrorists have deliberately imploded the US economy and transferred gargantuan amounts of wealth offshore as a means of sacrificing the American middle class. Fitts documents how trillions of dollars went missing from government coffers in the 90′s and how she was personally targeted for exposing the fraud.

Fitts explains how every dollar of debt issued to service every war, building project, and government program since the American Revolution up to around 2 years ago -- around $12 trillion -- has been doubled again in just the last 18 months alone with the bank bailouts. "We're literally witnessing the leveraged buyout of a country and that's why I call it a financial coup d'état, and that's what the bailout is for," states Fitts.

Massive amounts of financial capital have been sucked out the United States and moved abroad, explains Fitts, ensuring that corporations have become more powerful than governments, changing the very structure of governance on the planet and ensuring we are ruled by private corporations. Pension and social security funds have also been stolen and moved offshore, leading to the end of fiscal responsibility and sovereignty as we know it.

Fitts explained how when she was in government she tried to encourage the creation of small businesses, new jobs and new skills to compete in a globalized world otherwise the American middle class was toast, only to be forced out by the feds using dirty tricks. The elite instead wanted Americans to take on more credit card, mortgage and auto debt that corporations and insurers knew they couldn't afford, while quietly moving their jobs abroad in the meantime.

She has an extremely sophisticated understanding of how the world's financial system works right down to the "inconvenient truth" that revenues from the illegal drug business are essential for propping up the big money market banks. (Not a theory. Proven over and over again in criminal court trials.)

Fitts' well thought out ideas about exactly what needs to be done to put the American economy powerfully back on course were not welcome in the crime-friendly Bush administration and she was driven from government.

In this fascinating interview, she talks about where things are ultimately headed, the the true nature of the threat we face, and what we can do to turn things around.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Support Indigenous People Protesting the Militarisation of the Border, Border Patrol Abuses, and Racist,Terroristic Legislation in Arizona

image of protest is from here
With thanks to Brenda at Censored News. Please click on title to link back.
Thursday, February 24, 2011

Two more arrests as Indigenous protest Border Patrol and militarization


stopbordermilitarization@gmail.com

http://www.oodhamsolidarity.blogspot.com/
http://www.survivalsolidarity.wordpress.com/

Border Patrol Headquarters Occupation Protesters Stand Trial to Fight Charges

Two Arrested During March to End Border Militarization and Racist Laws

Press statement

TUCSON – On February 23, more than 40 protesters took to the streets – two were arrested – while six people who locked-down and occupied the US Border Patrol Tucson Headquarters on May 21, 2010 stood trial fighting charges of "criminal trespassing" and “disorderly conduct.”

Lawyers William G. Walker and Jeffrey J. Rogers represented the six as the city prosecutor called Border Patrol agents and Tucson Police to testify. The defense argued the trespassing charge was not properly filed and were granted a request to file a memorandum addressing the technicality. The trial is expected to continue on March 22, 2011. Corresponding rallies and actions are being planned.

At 1:30 pm people gathered in downtown Tucson at Library Park for a rally and then took the streets with banners reading, “Indigenous Resistance, Protect Sacred Places”, “Free Movement for People Not Commerce, Tear Down the Wall” and chanting “No Borders, No Border Patrol.”

Two people were arrested for allegedly hanging a banner that read “Las Paredes Vueltas de su Lado son Puentes (Torn Down Walls Become Bridges)” on a street traffic light. They were arraigned and released at 8 pm at Pima County Corrections.

Additional banners were hung at various locations throughout Tucson stating “Egypt, Wisconsin, O’odham Solidarity," “No raids, No deportations, No colonialism” and “Stop Militarization on Indigenous Lands."

O’odham Elders attended the court proceedings to demonstrate their support.
Donations can be made to support direct action efforts through Border Opposition Action Fund at http://www.borderopposition.blogspot.com/

END BORDER MILITARIZATION NOW! 
Communiqué from the occupiers of the Border Patrol Headquarters in Tucson, Arizona

We demand that the Border Patrol (BP), Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE), their parent entity, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Obama administration end militarization of the border, end the criminalization of immigrant communities, and end their campaign of terror which rips families apart through increasing numbers of raids and deportations.

The state thrives off of the climate of terror and fear that racist laws like HB2281 and SB1070, and new proposed laws like SB1611, 1308, 1309, 1405, have caused. This terror also manifests with thousands of troops invading indigenous lands, such as the Tohono O’odham, Yaqui, Kickapoo, Lipan Apache, to name a few. Since the creation of the current U.S./Mexico border, 45 O’odham villages on or near the border have been completely depopulated. This terror manifests with the bones of thousands – making the southern Arizona desert a grave yard, where the hopes and dreams of migrant families are stomped into the ground by border patrol agents, National Guard, minute men, and profiteering coyotes.

Through the military strategy of terror and fear the state maintains power and control.

We take direct action because we have decided not to be afraid. We are more afraid of not standing up to the state and what other crimes against humanity will be committed if it remains unchallenged.

We are not guilty of criminal trespassing or disorderly conduct.

The state, and by extension the border patrol, is guilty of occupying and destroying indigenous communities and ripping families apart. The development of the border wall has led to desecration of ancestor’s graves, it has divided communities and prevents them from accessing sacred places. When will this end?

These buildings, the court house, are made of brick and mortar and are the same brick and mortar that are the operation streamline immigration court just down the street. It is a direct manifestation of this system’s criminalization, where in the 3 hours that we’re in court today, nearly 100 people will be detained, adjudicated and deported through the streamline process.

Who are these building for? Who do they benefit? These are the same brick and mortar prisons are made of. It’s the same steel and concrete that is ripped from Mother Earth that’s used to build the border wall.

Politicians aren’t going to negotiate away our oppression. They are sitting in the chairs in their offices that are built on it. Our oppressors can only maintain their oppression as long as we are afraid of them.

If they are not going to do it, then we are going to find creative and direct ways to ensure that our communities are safe. We recognize that this is not going to happen within the walls of these institutions, these walls, these borders. It’s only going to happen if we tear them down. What does that look like?

Let’s come together, strategize, and embrace diverse tactics to effectively become the answer.

Today we also shed the term immigrant that has been used to attack our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, and children, many of whom are also indigenous, and to acknowledge and help restore the full human dignity that has been stripped away. To be immigrant should not be considered a crime unless 99 % of the U.S. is going to be ashamed and guilty of their pasts.

Our relatives are attacked on both sides of the border by colonial governments. The migration that the U.S. government is attempting to stop is driven more than anything else by the economic policies of the U.S. Free trade agreements such as NAFTA have severely reduced the ability of Mexicans and others from the global south to sustain themselves by permitting corporations to extract huge amounts of wealth and resources from these countries into the U.S. This has led to millions of people risking the terror and death that so many face to cross into the U.S. looking for ways to better support their families.

If the U.S. really intends on reducing migration it must end its policies of exploitation and wealth extraction targeted at the global south and instead pursue policies of economic, environmental and social justice for all human beings on the planet, thus reducing the drive to immigrate. But are they really going to do that?

Direct Action is about Direct Democracy. Building community is about communication, having respect for each other and doing something.


This is a struggle for freedom of movement and self-determination for all!

No racist laws, No colonial borders, WE WILL NOT STOP!

~NO BORDERS NO BORDER PATROL~ 

Friday, January 28, 2011

On International Holocaust Remembrance Day: This Jew asks, "What other genocides and mass atrocities are remembered and acknowledged in this way?"

photograph displaying grotesque anti-Semitic atrocity in a Nazi Death Camp pit is from here.
The gruesome photograph is cropped. I'm using the cropped version only because it allows for a visual reminder of what mass-death looks like, without the ability to focus in on the expressions on the faces or personal details of the bodies of those who perished. Generally, I won't put images of deceased people on this blog. We must note from the start, here, that only some humans will ever be regarded as human enough to support an international mourning of their loss.

At one website where the uncropped image exists, *here*, a commenter makes the following statement, referring to the importance of not forgetting the Nazi Holocaust and specifically addressing the matter of not forgetting who Adolph Hitler was and what he accomplished as a cultural-political leader in Germany in the 1930s and across half of the 1940s:
The man was a monster, supported by other monsters, and worshipped by millions. Sad to think he only gets less than a page in the new history books. Once he is forgotten we are doomed to repeat the horrors again.
A monster with other monsters: no. Monstrosity: yes. On the matter of repeated horrors, see all that follows. At the bottom of this post is copied text about "International Holocaust Remembrance Day", which occurred just yesterday. At the bottom of that piece, are links to related materials. It is the article to which the last link leads that I'll be addressing here, in an open letter to its authors.

I'm never sure what the function of such remembrance days is, other than to acknowledge those killed by and who survive genocidal atrocity with some level of collective respect and reverence. The perishing of approximately a dozen million people (some estimate the number of millions to be higher) across the span of five or so years, accomplished not by disease or famine (neither of which is apolitical), is something that ought not be forgotten and any and all social forces and dynamics that made such a heinous event happen ought be studied and not forgotten, in the service of preventing other similar atrocities. I am fully supportive of making time to remember those lost to political atrocity. The question immediately rises, though: whose political atrocities count, both as politically motivated crimes against humanity, and as genocides? And, why only a day of remembrance? Why not, in addition to that, an every-day accounting of our on-going atrocities?

What follows next is an article from Politico.com, and you may link back to it by clicking on the title. My commentary to the authors is in brackets and in bold.

Marking liberation from Auschwitz

Supporters of longtime opposition leader Alassane Ouattara take to
 the streets in Abidjan, Ivory Coast. | AP Photo
A political march regarding the state television chief in Ivory Coast coast turned violent in 2010. | AP Photo Close

By MICHAEL ABRAMOWITZ & MARK HANIS | 1/27/11 3:57 AM EST

Today marks the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, the largest Nazi death camp. The United Nations designated this date International Holocaust Remembrance Day to honor the memory of those killed during the [Nazi] Holocaust and to rededicate ourselves to doing all we can to prevent such horrible crimes from happening again.  

[Michael and Mark, I hope you are aware of the horrible crimes that have happened in North America in the period of time inclusive of and since the anti-Semitic and otherwise anti-human Nazi atrocities during WWII occurred. 

I hope you know, for example, that forced sterilisation of many ethnic groups of women, and the boarding and brutalising, including sexually, of First Nations and American Indian children was common practice through the 1960s. Human rights has yet to be realised in the Great Nation of the United States, which is responsible for millions of deaths globally, since the 1960s. Genocide against Indigenous Peoples cross-continentally, and in North America specifically, is on-going, is never-ending, and isn't so much a matter of what those of us who are white and Jewish ought "never forget" as it is a matter we ought to finally recognise as happening. In order to never forget something it must first be acknowledged, and not denied even as it occurs. This is, most certainly, the case with genocide of Indigenous people on this continent, and to Indigenous people globally perpetrated by our government policies and corporate heads wreaking havoc on the Earth which includes the sacred ground and homelands of so many nations of Native people. 

We still have an annual holiday, a whole day set aside for remembrance, during which we are encouraged to celebrate and honor a man who was a European invader, a serial rapist, a trafficker of girls, and a racist mass murderer. I'm sure you know his name: Christopher Columbus. I have written about this rapist savage, *here*. The piece was originally titled "A broch tzu Columbus: a curse on Columbus." 

As a Jew, I find it beyond comprehension and any claim to national morality that the U.S. has been celebrating this monstrous terrorist's life and horrific "accomplishments" for over one hundred years. We also take four days per year towards the end of November to celebrate the beginning of what remains the feast which symbolises the start of the largest genocide, in terms of gross numbers of those barbarically massacred, that the world has ever known. (Estimates range from 70 to 90 million people destroyed, which includes scores of nations and hundreds of cultures and ethnic groups. Here. Not over there.

What do you make of a popular information website promoting an idea that As many or more Europeans were killed by American Indians were American Indians killed by European men? See *here* for more. What would your own response be to an established Wikipedia page promoting the idea that as many Nazis were killed by Jews as Jews killed by Nazis, across the 1930s and through the mid-1940s? In what sense is such a webpage not outrageously propagandistic and horrendously racist? Where is our outrage?)

What do you feel about the fact that there are, presently, race-specific atrocities completely denied by white people who benefit from it in the U.S.: against the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas, and also against Black and Brown people. What do you make of this act of omission by whites who control or have the most access to our media?]

Given the bloody history of the past five decades — in Cambodia, Rwanda, the Balkans, Darfur and other places [I'm wondering why you limit the global scope to part of Southeast Asia, two regions of sub-Saharan Africa, and part of Europe: what is the function of ignoring the genocide happening in North America? I'd argue it is ignored because white men and their media in the U.S. do not believe they are in any way responsible the genocides you do list; this assumption is terribly, horribly false: U.S. and European white men are implicated quite directly in each and every one of them]— a healthy degree of skepticism is warranted about politicians’ commitment to the lofty goal of “never again.” [Especially when current genocides against many Indigenous Nations, against many ethnic groups--each happening in the U.S.--will not even be referenced, discussed, footnoted, or alluded to in a piece like yours. Nor will such atrocities be given a day during which we pledge to remember to stop committing them.] However, we believe that progress is discernible. Efforts by the United Nations and among member states to make genocide prevention a priority, coupled with a new focus by government officials and civil society [Given that the majority of those states are responsible for perpetrating genocide presently, committing other racist atrocity, and maintaining massive systematic crimes against women and girls to this day and well into tomorrow, what is your definition of "civil"?] on keeping political crises from metastasizing into massive violence against civilians, offer hope that a world without genocide is attainable. [Who are "civilians"? Are African Americans "civilians"? Are Mexicans and Mexican-Amricans? Are American Indians? Are women and girls across ethnicity and race? What are "political crises" and what constitutes "massive violence"? Men's rape of women and girls? Men's battery and sexual assault of women and children? Men's trafficking and sexual slavery of women and girls? I would appreciate an answer to this and any other questions posed to you here.]

Nearly 17 years ago, the United Nations looked the other way as genocide unfolded in Rwanda. So it was more than a little noteworthy last week when two senior U.N. officials, charged with monitoring for the threat of such grave crimes, bluntly warned about “the possibility of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing” in the Ivory Coast. [And also between the Atlantic Coast and the Pacific Coast of the United States, no? Again, my charge is that you are focusing on the possibility of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, ethnic cleansing programs, and other mass atrocities over there so as to avoid discussing those happening right here. What is the social function of rendering completely invisible the numerous and horrifying mass atrocities against women--white and of color? And against Black and Brown men and women living in the U.S.? Is the maintenance of a system of poverty inside and outside the U.S. a crime against humanity and form of ethnic cleansing, as far as you are concerned? Is what is happening to American Indians now cultural, spiritual, and physical genocide or isn't it?]

The Security Council has reinforced the U.N. peacekeeping force in the country, and numerous governments in Africa and elsewhere [in the U.S.?] are pressing Laurent Gbagbo to step down after the internationally recognized victory of opposition leader Alassane Ouattara in November’s election.

In Sudan, a referendum likely to result in partition of the country later this year proceeded relatively peacefully, following an intense diplomatic push by the United States and other countries. [This is the first time in this article you mention the actions of the United States. It is when the U.S. promotes ending atrocity, not when the U.S. government and its military and adult white male citizenry perpetrate it. Do you get the political function of these selective offerings of what the U.S. does?] Only six months ago, there were serious questions about whether the referendum would occur on time, and many feared a return to the sweeping violence, even genocide, that has plagued Africa’s largest country since its independence in 1956. [1956. That would be the year the following occurred in the U.S. Civil Rights struggle (source: *here*):
University of Alabama admits Autherine Lucy as its first African-American student, February 3, after prolonged litigation in federal court. White students and Tuscaloosa residents riot on February 6, and Lucy is suspended, allegedly for her own safety; she is later expelled for criticizing the university.

Special session of the Virginia legislature in August adopts program of "massive resistance" to school desegregation that calls for the closing of schools under desegregation orders.

Governor Frank Clement orders the National Guard to restore order in Clinton, Tennessee, on September 2 after white mobs attempt to block the desegregation of the high school.

Eisenhower is reelected on November 6.

Supreme Court affirms ruling of lower federal court in Browder v. Gayle declaring segregation on Alabama intrastate buses to be unconstitutional, November 13.

Montgomery boycott ends on December 21 as municipal buses begin operating on a desegregated basis. (Read Ted Poston in The New York Post, June 19, 1956 reporting on the boycott.)
1956 would also be the year in the U.S. marking state recognition (by North Carolina) of an Indigenous Nation, the Lumbee. Federal recognition has yet to occur. From *here*:
The Lumbee are the present-day descendants of the Cheraw Tribe and have continuously existed in and around Robeson County since the early part of the eighteenth century. (Note: A brief timeline of Lumbee history can be found by clicking here.) In 1885, the tribe was recognized as Indian by the State of North Carolina. The tribe has sought full federal recognition from the United States Government since 1888. In 1956, Congress passed the Lumbee Act, which recognized the tribe as Indian. However, the Act withheld the full benefits of federal recognition from the tribe. Efforts are currently underway to pass federal legislation that grants full recognition to the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina.
It was also a year of U.S. atrocity against Vietnamese people in the "United States War", called "The Vietnam War" by U.S.ers, so as not to so directly implicate and name U.S. Americans as the genocidal mass murders, based on their national/ethnic identity.

It was also a year in which there was a massive campaign to domesticate women in middle class and suburban homes. Poorer women, usually Black, were already being exploited for labor in other ways, including by being economically forced to clean whites' homes and care for whites' children, leaving their own children at home.]

Severe dangers remain in both the Ivory Coast and Sudan [and in the U.S.?]— particularly in the long-troubled Darfur region, [what about the long-troubled regions where the Navajo and Dakota live?] where violence has surged in recent months. However, there is reason to hope that governments around the world are finally getting the message that investing to prevent mass atrocities is not only sound humanitarian policy but also far more cost effective — avoiding huge costs of handling refugees, reconstruction and other requirements that inevitably follow genocide. Genocidal states also are invariably failed states, which incubate terrorism, pandemic diseases and other scourges. [This appears to me to be about as morally bankrupt an argument for stopping genocide as I can imagine: because of what it might cost the perpetrators? Because it might incite violence or spread disease which will impact and infect the killers and their accomplices? Is that the moral/ethical point you are wanting to promote?]

Just last year, the United Nations reaffirmed its commitment to a “Responsibility to Protect,” making clear that its members are willing to step in to protect civilians from genocide, ethnic cleansing and other atrocities [such as trafficking and rape?] when countries are unwilling or unable to do so. New U.N. offices on RtoP and Genocide Prevention are working to shine a light on situations where these crimes are occurring or likely to occur. [Will any light be shone on the genocide in the U.S.? Will any ray reach the plight of women and girls surviving--or not--men's abuses them as women and as girls? Are female people across age capable of being recognized as a politically harmed group of citizens, in your opinion?]

The Obama administration has appointed, for the first time, a White House director of war crimes and atrocities at the National Security Council and established an interagency prevention committee to address potential threats of genocide and mass atrocities. [What does it mean, to you, that this is occurring "for the first time"? Is it because the U.S. has not understood the Maafa and slavery and segregation of African and African-descended people as a crime and atrocity--specifically: a genocidal one? Were not the lives of millions of West Africans lost in the trans-Atlantic journey into hell-on-Earth, and on sea? Were human beings not laid down in shackles due to their race? What definitional dimension of "genocide" is missing? 

Do we not mention what happened and continues to happen to Black people in the U.S. "genocide" because the U.S. government and the military and police forces collectively imprison Black and Brown people as a means of ethnic cleansing? Do we avoid discussing anything we do as "terrorism" and "an atrocity" because the U.S. not-so-covertly requires and presently maintains mass atrocities including terroristic assaults against women and girls, nationally and internationally; mass atrocities and terroristic assaults against poor people and people of color, regionally and globally? Do we avoid "the g word" for what the U.S. has always done because the actual, current crimes against American Indians and other Indigenous people are not at all a "potential threat" but are, rather, a present and very active form of genocide? Is it because we don't do "reparations" for people we are still genocidally killing? Do we wait to see whose left, hoping there will be few to no people to pay? How do you compare the stunning silence by white U.S. citizens, civil people, who rather defiantly refuse to acknowledge or regard an on-going genocide, as compared to the silence and inaction of "the good Germans"? Are all of these reasons why we cannot categorise over 500 years of white men's brutality against Black people as genocidal, if for 200 to 300 of those years white men who settled in what became the U.S. were among the slavers?]

Congress also has taken some tentative steps toward endorsing genocide prevention as a matter of policy. [What is your opinion on why these steps are tentative? And isn't it shameful that the U.S. is only considering doing any of this now (tentatively)?] On the last day of its recent session, the Senate passed a resolution that recognizes the U.S. national interest in “helping to prevent and mitigate acts of genocide and other mass atrocities against civilians and supporting and encouraging efforts to develop a whole government approach to prevent and mitigate such acts.” [Can you link me to the U.S. government's plans to prevent and mitigate rape, battery, pimping, trafficking, racist abuses by police forces, the blatantly illegal and forced imprisonment of Black, Brown, and Muslim people of any ethnicity, genocidal activities maintained by the U.S. government and U.S.-based corporations corruptly feigning residency abroad?]

As important as these steps taken by Washington is the continued growth of a vibrant and vocal constituency of citizens and nongovernmental organizations committed to the abolition of genocide and other mass atrocities. Governments everywhere are on notice that they risk public opprobrium and embarrassment if they fail to respond effectively to the kind of killing that took place in Rwanda or Darfur. [This capacity to feel such embarrassment--or regret, remorse, or shame, to move out of denial, to release this country's citizens from governmental and media-imposed delusions of grandeur--appears to me to exist beyond or outside the clinically sociopathic consciousness of those who rule in the U.S. Do you agree?]

Despite these gains, considerable work remains. [Let's start by recognising the genocide against Indigenous North Americans and against all women and girls. And by removing from our national calendar the shameful, disgraceful holidays of Columbus Day and Thanksgiving.] Much of this agenda was laid out in the December 2008 report by the Genocide Prevention Task Force, co-chaired by Madeleine Albright and William Cohen. The report recommends an array of measures aimed at strengthening government capacity to prevent mass atrocities. [Might it be prudent to start with a "Genocide Acknowledgment and Recognition Task Force"?]

Some of the recommendations have been adopted, but many have not — including a strong presidential statement of policy on preventing genocide, the creation of an international atrocities prevention network and greater funding for crisis prevention in countries at risk. [Such as for white men's terrorist activities uniquely targeting women and girls across ethnicity, and for terrorist activities against Black, Brown, Muslim, and Indigenous people across the U.S., and across the rest of the Americas? If what the U.S. military is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq and in other parts of Asia isn't terrorism, pray tell, what is it? Shall we consider our support of a white supremacist Israeli Apartheid state, displacing, relocating, policing, militarily brutalising, and mass murdering Palestinians, while also discriminating against people of color within Israel--Jews and non-Jews--to be "civil" and humane?]

This must be accompanied by continued efforts to build a permanent anti-genocide constituency around the world that will hold all governments [including the U.S.'s? Are human rights activists, including feminists, right to assume that "all" would include the U.S. government?] accountable for turning “never again” into a reality. This task requires organization and massive public education about the moral, financial and national security costs of genocide. [How about the cost in human life, in grief, in suffering, in will to resist, to those groups the U.S. government, its corporations, and militarily protected institutions systematically violate, exploit, dominate, and destroy? Would you agree that considering them in any assessment of cost would be moral, appropriate, and responsible?]

Achieving this goal would be a worthy accomplishment to celebrate on another International Holocaust Remembrance Day. [When kosher pigs fly.]

Michael Abramowitz is director of the Committee on Conscience, the genocide prevention initiative of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Mark Hanis is co-founder and president of the newly merged Genocide Intervention Network / Save Darfur Coalition. 

And finally, this. Please click on the title to link back.

International Holocaust Remembrance Day

January 27 marks the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, the largest Nazi death camp. In 2005, the United Nations General Assembly designated this day as International Holocaust Remembrance Day (IHRD), an annual day of commemoration to honor the victims of the Nazi era. Every member nation of the U.N. has an obligation to honor the memory of Holocaust victims and develop educational programs as part of an international resolve to help prevent future acts of genocide. The U.N. resolution that created IHRD rejects denial of the Holocaust, and condemns discrimination and violence based on religion or ethnicity.

To commemorate International Holocaust Remembrance Day on January 27, 2011, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum will host a candle-lighting ceremony attended by the Washington, D.C. diplomatic community, Holocaust survivors, and the general public. The ceremony will take place in the Museum's Hall of Remembrance.

Read or watch President Barack Obama’s remarks commemorating International Holocaust Remembrance Day in 2010, which acknowledges the work of Sara Bloomfield and the Museum in preserving the memory of the Holocaust.

In addition, each April or May the United States officially commemorates the Holocaust during the national Days of Remembrance. The Museum is mandated by the U.S. Congress to lead the nation in commemorating this day.

Visit http://www.ushmm.org/remembrance/dor/ for more information and resources.

Watch a CBS public service announcement about International Holocaust Remembrance Day, featuring Katie Couric and the Museum.

Read an International Holocaust Remembrance Day Op-ed on preventing genocide today.

Friday, December 17, 2010

Mass Rapes, Torture, Executions, Detention, Disappearance, Discrimination against women, lesbians and gay men, people with disabilities, the elderly, migrants, "foreigners", Black, Brown, and Indigenous People, and an Erosion of Human Rights in Democratic Societies is the Rule, not the Exception

What follows is from Voice of America News. Please click on the title to link back. I offer commentary in bold and brackets in the text.

Human Rights Violations the Rule Not Exception in 2010

UN Human Rights Chief Navi Pillay (file photo)
UN Human Rights Chief Navi Pillay (file photo)

Human rights violations were the rule rather than the exception in 2010.  [And this has been the case for the last 500 years, with 2010 being no exception. The issue, as always, is this: Who or what government counts as a terrorist, and what counts as terrorism and a violation of human rights?] The United Nations says crimes such as mass rapes [not to mention individualised rapes which are also terroristic against women as a class], torture, extra-judicial executions, arbitrary detention, disappearances remain widespread throughout the world.  Even [corporately controlled quasi-]democratic societies are experiencing an erosion of human rights due to the so-called war on terror and growing xenophobia. [Consider this: which of the following is actually "a war on terror" and which is the perpetration of terrorism? And how do you distinguish the two? Is it by the number of humans who are terrified? Which generates more terror? First World genocide against the Fourth World or Indigenist activism to combat corporate-militarised invasion and occupation of Native Lands? Men's war on women or feminist activism to stop it? And, if three thousand U.S.ers and two buildings are destroyed in an act of terrorism, the U.S. response to invade and occupy two countries in Central Asia is seen as an appropriate response by the U.S. government. Does that mean that when the U.S. government murders hundreds of thousands of people, and destroys thousands of buildings, Afghanistan or Iraq invading and occupying the U.S. for a half dozen or more years would not be terrorism but instead would be the appropriate thing to do?]

[...] U.N. Human Rights Chief Navi Pillay is capping off a turbulent year by celebrating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Throughout the past 62 years, the Declaration has acted as a guide for human-rights values and a beacon of hope for millions of oppressed and abused people. [And it has been routinely, arrogantly, and flagrantly ignored or rejected by many nations in the West, including, especially, the U.S.]

She marks its achievements on Human Rights Day by honoring the hundreds of thousands of human-rights defenders who speak up against discrimination, often at great cost to themselves and to their loved ones. [And the retaliation for speaking out doesn't just impact individuals, although it certainly does do that. Speaking truth to power, and trying to hold brutal governments and corporations accountable also causes additional retaliatory distress and devastation to whole groups and classes of people, such as Indigenous people, Black and Brown people, and women across race, region, and class.]
"While combating discrimination and other important human rights causes, they themselves are often subject to discrimination," she said. "In fact, every year, thousands of human-rights defenders are harassed, abused, unjustly detained and even murdered." [And routinely murdered.]

Geneva Director for Human Rights Watch, Julie de Rivero says it is hard to say whether the situation of human rights now is better or worse than in previous years.  [We can at least conclude this: the rich are richer and more destructive. There's more rape and slavery of girls and women now than ever before.] But it is possible to detect certain patterns. [I'd identify the patterns as specifically this: Christian white het male supremacist. I wonder why no one else does.]

One of these, she says, is impunity for major violations. [Such as the relative impunity to any white- and male-dominated country for global violations of humans, non-human animals, and other life including to the Earth. Such as the relative impunity of the white het male supremacist Christian Churches who have committed child-rape, promoted patriarchal control of women by men; promoted heterosexist practices; lesbian self-hatred, gay self-hatred; promoted and conducted physical, sexual, and spiritual violations of Indigenous children across North America and beyond. Such as the relative impunity of corporate pimps raping and trafficking women. Such as the relative impunity of men who batter women. Such as the relative impunity of husbands who rape women. Such as the procurers who rape women in systems of prostitution. Such as fathers and father-figures and male relatives who, more than twice as often as abusing boys, incest their daughters or other girls in the family. Such as the complete impunity of U.S. white men who rape Indigenous women. But...] She gives Sri Lanka as an example.

"We saw the war end in Sri Lanka, but at a very high cost for civilians that were caught in indiscriminate fire by both sides," said Julie de Rivero. "And, yet, no accountability for war crimes in that country…And last of all, I would say the Bush era cases of torture that were committed under the guise of the war on terror that have remained unaccounted for and for which there is still impunity." [There is never any form of accountability for the war crimes, corporate and other economic crimes, non-war military crimes, anti-woman crimes, anti-queer crimes, racist crimes, genocidal crimes, and ecocidal crimes committed by the U.S. against any other country, nation, tribe, or people.]

De Rivero says the war on terror [but not on U.S. terrorism] and heightened concern for national security are leading to a further erosion of human-rights values, even in democratic societies.  She says the same fears are increasing xenophobic sentiments in European countries. [Translation: this means that white het male-ruled Europe is moving in a fascistically racist/misogynist direction.]

She says another worrying trend is sexual violence against women, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [The rape of women and girls by men is not, in any reasonable sense of the term, a "trend" nor is it, in any way, limited to the DRC, even while the gross frequency of terroristic rape in the DRC is a particular atrocity. Something that has been going on for millennia cannot be termed "a trend". Or, if that's the case, then over the last 500 years there's been a growing trend of European-descended Christian white het men taking over the Earth and destroying as much of it as possible. The highlighting of rape in one country in Africa without noting how it has been taught to many males across centuries by European men is, to me, racist and misogynistic. This is not to say that European men invented rape. It is to say European men globalised it as a form of terrorism of women and girls.]

"The scale of the phenomenon, I think, always compels us to focus on this particular situation because rape has been so normalized as a weapon of war in that country [and as a weapon of men's war against women in hundreds of countries] that it is shocking and the devastation that it causes is incredible in the lives of individuals and the community," she said. [The global community of womankind.]

"I think you have certain human rights violations that just continue year after year," said Rupert Colville. [Like rape. Like battery. Like trafficking. Like sexual and wage slavery. Like poverty. Like famine. Like loss of access to clean water or to water at all due to damming, such as in Borneo.]

Rupert Colville is Spokes[person] for the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights.

"You get some progress and then you get backsliding on something like torture," he said. "Almost all states have laws that prohibit torture and declare it a crime.  And, yet many states are still practicing it and many States do not prosecute those who commit it."

He says impunity for a whole range of crimes is a major concern, as is discrimination.

"Discrimination [and terrorism] against women, discrimination [and terrorism] against homosexuals, discrimination [and terrorism] against people with disabilities, the elderly, many, many groups - minorities, indigenous peoples," [against whom the problem is spiritual, cultural, sexual, and physical genocide, not only discrimination] said Colville. "So, that is a constant theme really on every continent, including in the developed countries, [especially in and by the CRAP-developed countries] where I think the treatment of migrants [and immigrants if they aren't Christian and white] or foreigners [or people who are returning to land that was stolen from them by "foreignors"] has clearly deteriorated in the past decade or so."

Colville notes the wheels of justice often grind slowly. [Because they are principally controlled by Westerners, Global Northerners, whites, heterosexuals, and last but not least: men.]  He says it can take years for the victims to get redress, but it does happen. [Not in the case of Black people, Brown people, Indigenous people, and women across race. Not in the case of the poor or the people of the Third World. Not by the non-human animals, plant life, seas, atmosphere, and the Earth as a whole system of Life. Can he point to any substantive redress achieved by and for any of those populations or places?]

"As we have seen, there is Chile and Argentina for example," he said. "You do not need to give up hope.  [As Derrick Jensen often notes, hope is not primarily what is needed. Effective oppression-ending systems of full accountability and the complete composting of CRAP is what is needed.] Twenty-thirty years down the line, people still are being brought to court and charged with serious crimes. [That's a pitiful example of justice, and again, "redress" is not primarily what is needed. The ending of all forms of gross exploitation, human violation, and the destruction of Earth is. Poor people cannot sue. Most trauma survivors cannot or will not sue. The Earth cannot sue Western/Global Northern governments, although it will eventually consume them all.] You still see people being brought to courts for crimes during World War II. [This is a classic example of using exceptional cases being presented as if they can be anything other than that.] So, that perhaps is the strength of the system. [No. Wrong. The fact that these cases will always only be exceptions to the rules proves that it is, in fact, the weakness of the system, if "strength" means effectively standing for, creating, and maintaining human rights.] It is that with these very serious crimes there is no statute of limitations. [Well, individual survivors do die.] Circumstances do change and people who think they are actively immune to justice sometimes find that is not actually the case in the long term." [I await this being the case with male supremacist perpetrators of misogynist violence. As yet, I see no evidence of  circumstances substantively changing for girls and women globally.]

The efforts of people who fight for human rights are supported by a body of international human rights law. [This is, tragically, more theoretical than experiential.]

Nine core international human-rights treaties lay out the rights and protections afforded individuals against specific violations.  They specify the obligations and responsibilities of States toward their citizens. [And they, alone, cannot stop States, governments, nations, corporations, and other perpetrators of human rights violations from ENDING the abuses and the crimes.]

Laws are no guarantee of good behavior. [No. But they are frequently a guarantor of very bad behavior--such as the laws that allow corporations to exist at all, let alone avoid paying taxes and being accountable to the abuses they perpetrate.] But states that have signed  treaties are more likely to be persuaded to implement them.  [This is not an adequate tool for achieving justice and liberation. Making patriarchal social organisation illegal and actionable, the pimping and procuring of girls and women illegal and actionable, making militarisation of genocidal First World governments illegal and actionable, and economic globalisation illegal and actionable, and making corporations an illegal entity would be a start. Why won't the UN acknowledge this?]

*          *          * 

Julian's note: I sent this blog post's URL to the UNwatch.org. I await their reply.

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Koyaanisquatsi: Life Out of Balance (A pro-Indigenist Film)

From Google Video:

As you watch this film, please note how much of the destruction depicted comes from white het male supremacist societies--how much of the destruction was designed and carried out under the control and order of patriarchal and racist white het men and their way of understanding things like progress and value. For much more on this, please read Yurugu: An African Centered Critique of European Cultural Thought and Behavior, which may now be purchased for as little as $18 (US).

The film is a series of views of the modern world, using music and images to tell a story about what happens when life goes in anti-Indigenist directions.

This 1982 documentary was the first of three films sometimes referred to as the Quatsi Trilogy and each title is a Hopi word: Koyaanisqatsi (Life in turmoil; Life out of balance),  Powaqqatsi (Parasitic Way of Life; Life in transformation), and Naqoyqatsi (a Life of Killing each other; Life in war).

I do sincerely believe the work of Dr. Vandana Shiva and many Indigenist activists across the globe have thoroughly addressed and found solutions to the problems raised in these films by the Western non-Indigenous film-maker and musical director.

The film asks questions that many pro-Indigenous and Indigenist activists have had the answers to for hundreds of years--indeed, there were answers before the questions came to rise in the imaginations of the dominant whites. One question remains: do those of us who are not Indigenous, and who live in what is called the First or Second World, want to hear the answers from those living in what is called the Third World, or the Fourth World (the worlds of Indigenous Peoples internationally and globally)?

Do we care enough about humanity and animals, plants, rivers, oceans, and sky, to place the interests and concerns and perspectives of Third and Fourth World women at the center of our own concerns and activism?

For more about the project, see this, which is from *here*.

And from Wikipedia, this:
Koyaanisqatsi (English pronunciation: /ˈkɔɪ.ɑːnɪsˈkɑːtsiː/ KOY-ah-nis-KAHT-see), also known as Koyaanisqatsi: Life out of Balance, is a 1982 film directed by Godfrey Reggio with music composed by Philip Glass and cinematography by Ron Fricke.

The film consists primarily of slow motion and time-lapse stock footage of cities and many natural landscapes across the United States. The visual tone poem contains neither dialogue nor a vocalized narration: its tone is set by the juxtaposition of images and music. Reggio explains the lack of dialogue by stating "it's not for lack of love of the language that these films have no words. It's because, from my point of view, our language is in a state of vast humiliation. It no longer describes the world in which we live."[6] In the Hopi language, the word Koyaanisqatsi means "crazy life, life in turmoil, life out of balance, life disintegrating, a state of life that calls for another way of living".[7] The film is the first in the Qatsi trilogy of films: it is followed by Powaqqatsi (1988) and Naqoyqatsi (2002). The trilogy depicts different aspects of the relationship between humans, nature, and technology. Koyaanisqatsi is the best known of the trilogy and is considered a cult film. However, because of copyright issues, the film was out of print for most of the 1990s.[8]

Powaqqatsi (trailer) may be seen *here*.

Naqoyqatsi (trailer):


Naqoyqatsi, part 1:

Saturday, November 27, 2010

The Politics and Price of Water, and Human Life: Which do you think governments and corporations value more?

katine borehole pumping
A woman pumps water from a borehole in Katine, in north-east Uganda. Photograph: Martin Godwin/Guardian

Water is a radical profeminist issue because it is women of color, poor women, and other women are responsible for making sure they and their loved ones stay alive by getting it from a preferably unpolluted source to the mouths of the thirsty--which often requires journeying for many miles.

The politics and corporate control of water is terribly serious feminist issue and I wish more men who claim to be feminists would take up this issue, as such.

The image and caption above and all that follows is cross-posted from the PovertyMattersBlog at The Guardian. Please click on the title below to link back.

Is the stage being set for new water wars in Africa?

The African Development Bank insists that the only way to tackle the water and sanitation crisis on the continent is through privatisation and making people pay. But putting a price on water has a contentious history in Africa

 

With diarrhoea the biggest killer of children in Africa, the urgency of the water and sanitation crisis on the continent is hard to question. But while some NGOs are calling on African governments to make water and sanitation integral parts of their national public health strategies, and fund them accordingly, the African Development Bank (AfDB) announced this week that closing the continent's multi-billion dollar infrastructure gap requires new investors and paying customers.

Leading a special session on "financing instruments in water for growth and development" at this year's Africa Water Week summit, the bank said that an estimated annual $45bn-$60bn (£28bn-38bn) is needed to improve Africa's water infrastructure – of which $11bn (£7bn) is flagged for the continent's drinking-water supply and sanitation needs.

"Financing from official development assistance [ODA] and national budgets is clearly not sufficient to close the financing gap in the water and sanitation sector," said the bank, which is urging governments and water sector professionals to make their countries and their programmes more attractive to other investors.

In the run up to the UN summit on the millennium development goals in New York in September, the UN estimated that the total amount of overseas aid to developing countries will fall by around $108bn (£68.5bn) in 2010.

What's more, the optimism that once accompanied ODA (the official term for aid) has faded fast in the years since the 2005 Gleneagles summit, when G8 members projected that aid to Africa would double by 2010.

"Africa will receive only about $11bn out of the $25bn increase envisaged at Gleneagles," said the UN.

To fill the shortfall, the AfDB believes money can be tapped from greater user contributions, savings from utility reforms, private sector investments and contributions from private foundations.

They also point to micro-finance as a possible mechanism for funding water services at a local level, along with climate adaptation funds.

Commercial finance, says the bank, can help to fill the gap between demand and the resources available from government budgets and aid, and is "perhaps the largest untapped source of finance for water".

Meeting with African governments, civil society organisations and representatives from the private sector in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, this week, the bank released two new reports on water and sanitation on the continent.

The first – a hefty, two-volume, 178-page report on "Water sector governance in Africa" – signals weak governance as a main reason for poor water and sanitation services on the continent.

Its second report focuses on how to finance the water sector in both urban and rural areas, promoting user fees as the primary mechanism for recovering costs.

"Over 25 years have passed since the water decade and the truth remains that adequate cost recovery is still one of the major obstacles to maintenance and expansion of drinking water supply in developing countries," says the bank, adding that charging for water was the only way to make infrastructure and services financially sustainable.

Human right issue

In July this year, the UN general assembly declared that access to clean water and sanitation is a human right.

But the bank argues that it is a "misconception that rights entitle people to free water; instead, water and sanitation should be clean, accessible and affordable for all. People are expected to contribute financially or otherwise to the extent that they can do so".

The issue is getting the prices right, not about whether or not a price should be charged, it seems. Instead of subsidising water for the poor, service providers should offer cheaper options, such as public toilets and bathing houses.

The bank states that subsidising water supplies and services distorts a customer's understanding of the value of water and leads to waste.

But placing a price on water has a contentious history in Africa, as it has across the developing world.

Ten years ago, the World Bank-sponsored privatisation of the municipal water supply in Cochabamba, Bolivia's third largest city, prompted a series of mass demonstrations, later labelled the "Cochabamba water wars". After months of protests, the government declared a "state of siege" before promising the repeal of water privatisation legislation, while the then World Bank president, James Wolfensohn, insisted that the public subsidy of water services only leads to the waste of resources.

In her book, Earth Democracy, Indian environmental activist Vandana Shiva argues that it is a myth that people only value water once it is priced on the market.

"Women who walk 10 miles for water do not waste a drop, even though their water is not provided through market transactions."

Meanwhile, South Africa's experience with the privatisation of water services sparked widespread protests over the human cost of placing a price on clean water.

In 2000, a cholera epidemic broke out in South Africa's KwaZulu-Natal province, infecting some 120,000 people and claiming the lives of 265. Local authorities in the province had previously set up a system of prepaid water meters to collect user fees. But the institution of the meters and the fees meant that many went elsewhere in search of water, with tragic results.

"Those who cannot afford to pay for water in advance from communal meters or have been cut off from services for not paying rising water bills are forced to seek sources in polluted puddles, rivers and canals that carry disease," reported the New York Times in 2003.

"Privatisation is a new kind of apartheid," added Richard Maholo, leader of the South African Crisis Water Committee.

"Apartheid separated whites from blacks. Privatisation separates the rich from the poor."

According to WaterAid, 80% of African countries are off-track for the MDG target on sanitation. Half of the African continent is set to miss the target on drinking water. And every day 2,000 African children die from diarrhoea. It would be hard to deny that something needs to be done.

However, there will inevitably be concerns that the AfDB is using the urgency of the water and sanitation crisis in Africa to push through an agenda for the commodification of water and the privatisation of services. Is the stage being set for new water wars in Africa?

Thursday, November 11, 2010

The United States of America Is The World's Largest Seller of Weapons of Mass Destruction: So Are We Terrorists Yet?

image is from here
 [12 Nov. 20101 update: The original image has been changed to the one you now see, 
due to an insightful comment posted below by vluk. Thanks, vluk!]


If we imagine them with their clothes off, do they become less or more scary?

There's so much blood on rich U.S. white men's hands that you'd think THEY'D be called "the red man". And why not? They have sports teams called "The Braves", "The Redskins", and the "Indians". Why not give the vampiric and bloody white man the color he seems to want all to himself. Oh, because he's a palien. And a pale-faced vampire. And a terrorist who makes everything go white due to blood being drained out from fear or fatality. Yeah, "The White Man" fits.

Just two more questions, for now:

How many guns and other weapons does a nation have to sell before it's considered a primary source of terroristic activities? The answer is firing in the wind.

How much death and destruction does one country have to participate in, covertly or overtly, in wars declared and denied, to be considered TOP TERRORIST OF THE WORLD? I'm just asking.

What follows is from PressTV. Please click on the article title to link back to them.
Wed Nov 10, 2010 3:1AM
Share | Email | Print
F-22 Raptor fighter jet
The United States has topped the list of global arms sellers, with Israel, UAE and India purchasing the bulk of arms including fighter jets, says a think tank.


According to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the US sold 341 combat planes between 2005 and 2009, up from 286 jets sold during the previous five-year period, while Russia sold 219 planes followed by France, China and Sweden, AFP reported on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the biggest buyers of fighter jets are Israel, United Arab Emirates and India, collectively accounting for nearly one third of all global arms purchases.

The independent Swedish institute has also warned that the spiraling sales of fighter jets could further destabilize many parts of the world.

"While combat aircraft are often presented as one of the most important weapons needed for defense, these same aircraft give countries possessing them the potential to easily and with little warning strike deep into neighboring countries," said Siemon Wezeman, a senior fellow at the SIPRI Arms Transfers Program.

The study has pointed to the Israeli airstrike against Syria in September 2007 as the prime example of such threats hanging over the peace and stability across the world.

SIPRI also turned the spotlight on lucrative contracts as well as stupendous amount of cash being transacted for selling and buying the combat aircraft, saying "the more advanced aircraft cost over 40 million dollars (29 million euros) each and often substantially more."

According to the report, more than 50 countries -- Israel (82), Jordan (36), China (45) and Yemen (37) -- purchased a total of 995 new and second-hand fighter planes between 2005 and 2009.

HA/MGH

An Open Letter To Yale's Social Justice Activists

Addressing Global Social Justice at

image is from here

What follows is my comment/reply to Kate McDermott, who authored a piece called "Putting the Gender Back in Trans/gender Awareness Week", which may be read in full at the Midnight at Yale website, *here*.

Hi Kate,

It's really a discouraging time. Because there's so much pain and wounding going on in queer community, from where I sit right smack in the middle of it.

Lesbianism has become a taboo word--practically censored out of any conversations as a legitimate identity, unless it exists to turn men on. I'm not surprised that it has slipped to second place in many organisations that were once "LGBT" but are now back to being "GLBT". This places one of the more privileged groups of men in our community at the top--again.

But given the organising around "what's in" these days, the order appears to be "TGBI" with I being intersex and virtually nothing at all done to educate anyone about it. And L for lesbian being off the list. And never mind discussion about intergender reality.

I support intersex and intergender people's rights to be free from surgical and political interventions, am in regular dialogue with intersex people and also maintain plenty of contact with lesbians and non-lesbian women who are actively working to dismantle the gender hierarchy rather than pretending it doesn't exist in a "post-feminist" era that is far from "post-patriarchal".

Trans activists, to date, won't engage in conversation with me because I'm calling us out on the misogyny and male supremacy in our ranks--as others do too, like Joelle Ruby Ryan.

The only response I've gotten is from a non-trans man who is very white and very privileged by class, education (Harvard Law), profession and ability. His only response is to call me names and think he's doing "good education work" on behalf of people who are structurally, politically positioned below him.

What I see is many young lesbian women being truly afraid of being termed "transphobic" when we're all transphobic, after all, just as all whites are racist; everyone internalises it and some, like whites, institutionally, systemically externalise it too against people of color. So now that we're all done with the name-calling--we're all "all of the above", when do we begin constructive conversation across differences about how to radically transform society which is disproportionately mass murdering female people who are Indigenous, Asian, Brown, and Black?

One wonders if anyone cares any more about the "gender" that is defined as being a wh*re for men, from birth to death. And about the "gender" that exists, structurally, politically, to take care of men; about the gender that is either socialised, coerced, or forced to do so, depending on where you live. The gender that is enslaved currently at rates unseen at any other time in human history--by traffickers, pimps, and slavers (who are predominantly men). That gender is called "woman".

I wonder why non-trans and trans activism in the so-called First World isn't allied with and supportive of all the battles being waged for sovereignty, safety, and survival by women and girls across Asia--from Afghanistan (Malalai Joya and the women of RAWA) to Iraq (including Yanar Mohammed) to India (including the efforts of Ruchira Gupta and the escaped girls and women in Apne Aap), to the struggles of women and girls across Malasia, Thailand, Cambodia, and East Asia.

Why, in your own experience, does trans activism tend to focus so much on those "evil second wavers"--Audre Lorde being one its more brilliant spokespeople addressing the utter importance of meaningful respectful dialogue across difference while taking radical feminism seriously? Why have new populations and generations of anti-feminist queer and non-queer folks begun to once again dominate the scene, treating activism to root out a deadly gender hierarchy as off limits to discuss? Neither the Right or the Left will take on the matter of ending rape and genocide. Why?

Who benefits by taking the spotlight off of how we all need to survive and challenge and stop the abuses perpetrated and perpetuated by men, white especially, class-privileged especially, with professional and political power, structurally, who actually do beat and rape trans women, trans men, who perform unneeded and unwelcomed surgeries on intersex people. Why is challenging the most powerful class of men in our region of the world, and beyond--the rich white heterosexual ones--who control all media, not seen as a social emergency that college campuses should be outraged by.

For one thing, all your tuition keeps going up and up because the richest five percent of U.S. Americans won't pay taxes due to loop-holes, including bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. They earned 80% of all the money earned across class over the last ten years. Where's the gendered connection to economic justice, to challenging capitalist atrocity that thinks taxing the poorest 50% of the population is acceptable--which will always be disproportionately female and of color, while Exxon Mobil which has had a banner year, pays no tax at all?

Whatever happened to challenging racist, capitalist heteropatriarchy to the roots of its atrocious existence? What happened to listening to women like Audre Lorde? To listening to Alice Walker--still quite alive. To Patricia Hill Collins. To bell hooks. To Catharine A. MacKinnon. To Sheila Jeffreys. All of whom take women's lives very, very seriously.

Why the veering off to avoid the rather financially large and looming white het male elephant in the room?

I've been trying to engage folks in conversation at my blog, A Radical Profeminist, and if there are any folks there who want to engage, I'm very willing. I'm an intergender male. White. Gay. Asexual. Disabled. Jewish. Survivor of lots of sexual/heterosexist/male supremacist abuse.

When do we challenge class-privileged people are able to discuss re-valuing a politically lethal form of femininity that was designed by pimps to control, exploit, and violate women, while seven year old girls are being told to dress like wh*res for Halloween? When do formerly trafficked and enslaved women--Indigenous in Vancouver and everywhere else, Asian in Phnom Penh and everywhere else, poor Black and Brown globally, get to weigh in on this matter of re-appropriating the language used against them while they are being raped by procurers and pimps?

I welcome your response.

And thanks for caring about social justice issues and for getting involved.

Julian