Saturday, March 31, 2007
Google it, Bush
I used to think governments are absolute sources of truth and fact. They are aware of things the people aren't. The political knowledge people gain from reading newspapers, magazines, and academic journals, is inferior to the first-hand, direct, and accurate, knowledge of governments. Nothing gets by them, and if it does it’s getting by everyone else as well. How wrong I was. Check out this blog entry from The Nation.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Nuclear Proliferation and Democratic Deficit
This is the draft of an article published in Planet S Magazine: March 29 – April 11, 2007 Volume 5: Issue 16
Sometime after the mushroom clouds settled in Japan at the close of the Second World War, a move was made against the spread and use of nuclear weapons. For one, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was established, setting its sights on preventing another Hiroshima or Nagasaki. In 1968 the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was established, and signed by numerous states, as an agreement to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons. And yet, despite the existence of the agency and the treaty, both very popular, at least in word, we are facing a nuclear weapons crisis.
The world remains inundated with these bombs and, only worse, more are being developed. The reason this is such a bad situation is that most people, especially in Western countries, are opposed to the nuclear weapons industry. Nevertheless, their opposition usually falls on deaf ears. While the United States accuses Iran of having a secret nuclear weapons program, and condemns North Korea for having the bomb, it continues to fund the design and production of nuclear weapons.
So the time is ripe for a documentary film about the nuclear weapons industry. And this is just what Danny Bradbury, a journalist and filmmaker, has done with Epicentre, a film whose grand topic arose from something much smaller.
“It started off being a film primarily about the downwinders: a group of people in the U.S. who were dusted by radioactive fallout from the atmospheric tests in the 50s and 60s. I arranged to go and interview some of these people and as I went down there and talked to them I realized that actually the bomb had a much bigger effect in many different ways in terms of the effect on the land and the environment from the testing and the nuclear reactors it used to produce the weapons, the fuel for the weapons, and on the people that lived on that land and what had happened to them. So, essentially, it turned into a much bigger story. The film sort of developed organically as I went along and it went from being one movie to being three or four different movies that I resolved to try and squeeze down into one broad look on the issue.”
“And actually one of the things I found out was that the U.S. nuclear weapons complex is revitalizing, they’re re-developing the complex in a sort of multi-decade plan. And they’ve made decisions to re-design essentially the entire nuclear arsenal – begin making new nuclear weapons. Not only has the issue not gone away since the Cold War but actually we are in a crucial period and it’s coming to the foreground again in terms of foreign policy and world politics.”
Bradbury suggests that the West is not living up to its image as a moral authority. Considering the evidence, he’s definitely on the right lines.
“We really should be leading the way in terms of trying to lead the world to a non-nuclear stage – to the point where we are able to get rid of all nuclear weapons. But in fact the U.S. is moving in the opposite direction. They’re essentially giving a message to the world that ‘not only are we keeping our bombs,’ which we actually did commit to trying to get rid of under the non-proliferation treaty, ‘but also we’re developing new ones.’”
And to make matters worse, the effect of the nuclear weapons industry is not confined to the relations between states. It has had a corroding effect on our internal political system, and our most beloved of institutions: democracy.
“Everyone talks about the effect of nuclear weapons on the world in terms of national boundaries. They think about it in terms of nations. To me, it seems much more productive to think about this in terms of a division between a government and its people. So when you look at the effect of the bomb, and when you look at the stake holds that’s involved in producing a bomb, and who controls it, it very much divides the people from the government. So the government says ‘we need to pile all this tax-money into developing nuclear weapons.’ And the people, generally I think, don’t appreciate the idea of being incinerated within half an hour’s notice.”
Nevertheless, we should not see ourselves as just passive, resigned to merely wishing the nuclear weapons industry away. We, specifically the people of Saskatchewan, are partly responsible for the spread of nuclear weapons. And so we have a role, if we wish to take it, in ending nuclear proliferation.
“The nuclear energy industry arose because the nuclear weapons industry existed. And there’s always been an extremely strong tie between the two. Some of the uranium that was used in the original Japanese bombs came from Saskatchewan. We’ll always have to live with that fact. We have a responsibility for what happened. Of course we are all responsible in some way or another. If you support, in any way, what happens within the nuclear weapons complex then ultimately you’ve helped to make the world a worse place.”
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Burmese Ways
After becoming independent in 1948 it was called the Union of Burma. In 1974 it became the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma. It went back to the Union of Burma in 1988. Since 1989 it's been the Union of Myanmar. One constant has been the capital: Rangoon. Very recently, though, they've changed that as well. Naypyidaw is the Union of Myanmar's capital city as of this moment.
I'm spent.
I'm spent.
Israel - Apartheid?
John Dugard, a South African lawyer and UN special rapporteur on human rights in Palestinian territories, has recently likened Israel’s policy towards Palestinians to the apartheid of South Africa. He cites the restriction of movement in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), with its over 500 checkpoints and roadblocks; the Wall being constructed in the West Bank, separating Israelis from Palestinians; and the constant military attacks of civilian areas. In his words: "Can it seriously be denied that the purpose of such action is to establish and maintain domination by one racial group (Jews) over another racial group (Palestinians) and systematically oppressing them? Israel denies that this is its intention or purpose. But such an intention or purpose may be inferred from the actions described in this report."The former United States President, Jimmy Carter, has made similar claims in his book Palestine: Peace not Apartheid; although, in my opinion, his criticism of Israel seems overly motivated by his religious beliefs.
Report
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Equity Report Two: Aboriginals in the Workforce
Originally Published:
Planet S Magazine
March 14 - March 28, 2007 Volume 5: Issue 15
Page 9
The headline of the Government of Saskatchewan news release, issued on March 9, was positively ecstatic: “Job Numbers Sizzling.” According to the province, we’ve just come through the best February in history for employment numbers in Saskatchewan, and—not surprisingly—the lowest unemployment rate on record for that month as well. Job numbers were up in construction, services, trade and finance, insurance and real estate, and the oil, gas and mining industries.
Obviously, the figures do present a bit of a double-edged sword in terms of the very real labour crunch the province is facing, with businesses scrambling to find employees. Yet somehow—although moderate gains have been made in recent years—an exceedingly large pool of potential workers remains essentially untapped in Saskatchewan—the Aboriginal community.
According to Statistics Canada, the rate of unemployment nationally among Aboriginals is 2.5 times greater than among non-Aboriginals. Perhaps most depressingly, this actually represents an improvement, as employment increased by 23 per cent for Aboriginals—compared to 11 per cent for non-Aboriginals—between 2001 and 2005.
According to Eric Howe, a professor of economics at the U of S with a special interest in Aboriginal economic development, the ‘good news’ portion of these statistics—pointing to an increase in employment for Aboriginals relative to non-Aboriginals—is at least cause for hope.
“With a continuing development of appropriate social policies, such as the increasing number of educational programs for Aboriginal people, cautious optimism is appropriate,” says Howe.
But while the increasing employment of Aboriginal people across the country in comparison to non-Aboriginals is a welcome development, Aboriginals are, disconcertingly, not seeing a corresponding increase in their average wage as compared to non-Aboriginals. According to Howe, this has a lot to do with the kinds of jobs Aboriginals have been receiving.
“The increased employment rate is filling in the job distribution—so although there are more Aboriginal people who are employed, disproportionately many of the additional workers are in less well-paying jobs, which keeps the average from rising as much as it does for a typical Aboriginal worker,” he says.
So what’s the key for improving both employment rates and wages for Aboriginal people? Obviously, this is a complex issue—entrenched attitudes of racism in the larger society continue to keep Aboriginals out of the workforce, and the resulting sense of isolation and hopelessness many Aboriginal people feel only compounds the issue. But according to Howe, doing everything we can to raise Aboriginal education levels is a crucial first step.
The stats bear this out—showing that, with postsecondary education, Aboriginal employment rates across Canada nearly mirror that of non-Aboriginals. Aboriginal people who have some form of postsecondary education experience an employment rate of 82.5 percent, just one percentile short of their non-Aboriginal counterparts. Sadly, Saskatchewan’s employment gap for Aboriginals with a postsecondary education is a little wider—with Aboriginals at 80.0 percent and non-Aboriginals at 86.1 percent. Still, the point stands: the spread of higher education in the Aboriginal community generally leads to an improved economic position.
Working towards increased postsecondary education for Aboriginal people is a complex task, perhaps, but one which is nonetheless within our control—depending on the will of federal and provincial governments to commit to programs that work, such as subsidising the cost of higher education. But as Howe points out, there are other relevant factors affecting the economic potential of Aboriginals—and some of them will be much more difficult to address.
Where you happen to live in Canada, for instance, plays a large role in deciding whether or not you have a job if you’re Aboriginal. Simply put, some provinces are just doing better than others when it comes to Aboriginal equality in the workforce. And Saskatchewan is not one of them.
We have the largest employment rate gap between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals in Western Canada. Furthermore, Saskatoon and Regina, with their large Aboriginal populations, are the biggest culprits.
Why is the level of employment so poor here? One reason, says Howe, has to do with where Saskatchewan’s Aboriginal population has traditionally lived—and the lengths they have to go to in order to join in the province’s employment boom.
“Probably the most important difference is that between reserves in Saskatchewan as opposed to elsewhere in Canada,” Howe says. “Most of Saskatchewan’s reserves are located in rural areas. As we all know, job growth in our province is almost entirely an urban phenomenon.
“Consequently, when Aboriginal people in Saskatchewan seek a job—and move to where the jobs are—they have to leave the reserve to move to urban areas. For many of the reserves in the remainder of Canada, they can stay on reserve until they get a job and decide to move,” Howe explains.
For Aboriginals in Saskatchewan, this means leaving their home—and often their families—behind in order to seek employment that is by no means assured. Thankfully, the rise in urban reserves—most notably the successful Muskeg Lake Cree Nation urban reserve in Saskatoon—and the work of groups like the Saskatoon Tribal Council, has increased the level of support available to Aboriginals arriving in the province’s cities. It’s a start, at least, on the long road to equality.
Planet S Magazine
March 14 - March 28, 2007 Volume 5: Issue 15
Page 9
The headline of the Government of Saskatchewan news release, issued on March 9, was positively ecstatic: “Job Numbers Sizzling.” According to the province, we’ve just come through the best February in history for employment numbers in Saskatchewan, and—not surprisingly—the lowest unemployment rate on record for that month as well. Job numbers were up in construction, services, trade and finance, insurance and real estate, and the oil, gas and mining industries.
Obviously, the figures do present a bit of a double-edged sword in terms of the very real labour crunch the province is facing, with businesses scrambling to find employees. Yet somehow—although moderate gains have been made in recent years—an exceedingly large pool of potential workers remains essentially untapped in Saskatchewan—the Aboriginal community.
According to Statistics Canada, the rate of unemployment nationally among Aboriginals is 2.5 times greater than among non-Aboriginals. Perhaps most depressingly, this actually represents an improvement, as employment increased by 23 per cent for Aboriginals—compared to 11 per cent for non-Aboriginals—between 2001 and 2005.
According to Eric Howe, a professor of economics at the U of S with a special interest in Aboriginal economic development, the ‘good news’ portion of these statistics—pointing to an increase in employment for Aboriginals relative to non-Aboriginals—is at least cause for hope.
“With a continuing development of appropriate social policies, such as the increasing number of educational programs for Aboriginal people, cautious optimism is appropriate,” says Howe.
But while the increasing employment of Aboriginal people across the country in comparison to non-Aboriginals is a welcome development, Aboriginals are, disconcertingly, not seeing a corresponding increase in their average wage as compared to non-Aboriginals. According to Howe, this has a lot to do with the kinds of jobs Aboriginals have been receiving.
“The increased employment rate is filling in the job distribution—so although there are more Aboriginal people who are employed, disproportionately many of the additional workers are in less well-paying jobs, which keeps the average from rising as much as it does for a typical Aboriginal worker,” he says.
So what’s the key for improving both employment rates and wages for Aboriginal people? Obviously, this is a complex issue—entrenched attitudes of racism in the larger society continue to keep Aboriginals out of the workforce, and the resulting sense of isolation and hopelessness many Aboriginal people feel only compounds the issue. But according to Howe, doing everything we can to raise Aboriginal education levels is a crucial first step.
The stats bear this out—showing that, with postsecondary education, Aboriginal employment rates across Canada nearly mirror that of non-Aboriginals. Aboriginal people who have some form of postsecondary education experience an employment rate of 82.5 percent, just one percentile short of their non-Aboriginal counterparts. Sadly, Saskatchewan’s employment gap for Aboriginals with a postsecondary education is a little wider—with Aboriginals at 80.0 percent and non-Aboriginals at 86.1 percent. Still, the point stands: the spread of higher education in the Aboriginal community generally leads to an improved economic position.
Working towards increased postsecondary education for Aboriginal people is a complex task, perhaps, but one which is nonetheless within our control—depending on the will of federal and provincial governments to commit to programs that work, such as subsidising the cost of higher education. But as Howe points out, there are other relevant factors affecting the economic potential of Aboriginals—and some of them will be much more difficult to address.
Where you happen to live in Canada, for instance, plays a large role in deciding whether or not you have a job if you’re Aboriginal. Simply put, some provinces are just doing better than others when it comes to Aboriginal equality in the workforce. And Saskatchewan is not one of them.
We have the largest employment rate gap between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals in Western Canada. Furthermore, Saskatoon and Regina, with their large Aboriginal populations, are the biggest culprits.
Why is the level of employment so poor here? One reason, says Howe, has to do with where Saskatchewan’s Aboriginal population has traditionally lived—and the lengths they have to go to in order to join in the province’s employment boom.
“Probably the most important difference is that between reserves in Saskatchewan as opposed to elsewhere in Canada,” Howe says. “Most of Saskatchewan’s reserves are located in rural areas. As we all know, job growth in our province is almost entirely an urban phenomenon.
“Consequently, when Aboriginal people in Saskatchewan seek a job—and move to where the jobs are—they have to leave the reserve to move to urban areas. For many of the reserves in the remainder of Canada, they can stay on reserve until they get a job and decide to move,” Howe explains.
For Aboriginals in Saskatchewan, this means leaving their home—and often their families—behind in order to seek employment that is by no means assured. Thankfully, the rise in urban reserves—most notably the successful Muskeg Lake Cree Nation urban reserve in Saskatoon—and the work of groups like the Saskatoon Tribal Council, has increased the level of support available to Aboriginals arriving in the province’s cities. It’s a start, at least, on the long road to equality.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Human shields
A distinction is commonly made between jus ad bellum and jus in bello: roughly translated as the justice of war and the justice within war. A state's decision to go to war with another is justified if there have been acts of aggression against it. Having justice on one's side, however, does not mean anything goes. There are strict rules of war: no targeting of civilians; and no use of violence beyond what is required, among other things. So, it's possible to be in accordance with jus ad bellum and not jus in bello, and vice-versa. For example, we would be right in defending our state against aggression but wrong in dropping a nuclear bomb in our aggressor's civilian-filled capital as an extended response.
Whether or not Israel's war with Palestine is justified will not be decided easily - jus ad bellum is complex in this case. A much easier task is asserting their violation of jus in bello. In a recent raid of Nablus in the West Bank, Israeli soldiers took to using young Palestinians as human shields. Nothing could be a more obvious violation of the rules of war.
B'Tselem: Human Shields
Whether or not Israel's war with Palestine is justified will not be decided easily - jus ad bellum is complex in this case. A much easier task is asserting their violation of jus in bello. In a recent raid of Nablus in the West Bank, Israeli soldiers took to using young Palestinians as human shields. Nothing could be a more obvious violation of the rules of war.
B'Tselem: Human Shields
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Equity Report: Women in the Workforce
Originally Published:
Planet S Magazine
March 1 - March 14, 2007 Volume 5: Issue 14
Page 14
It's 2007, and the battle for equality has been won, right? Well, no. Regardless of what Bev Oda, the federal Minister for the Status of Women, might say, we're not there yet - and in many cases, we're not there by a long shot.
In terms of the Canadian work force, a quick scan of the most recent statistics shows that, although there has been some progress in moving towards equality in recent years, women still face some very real problems.
According to Statistics Canada, as of 2003 women aged 16 and older took in a pre-tax income that was substantially lower than their male counterparts: while men earned an average of $39,000 women made $24,000 - or roughly 62 percent of the men's earnings.
It only gets worse once unpaid work is considered, as the inequality becomes much more pronounced. According to Status of Women Canada, men undertake only about two-thirds of the unpaid work women do - although the "Department of Small Comfort" would point out that this is actually an improvement. It was much worse in the mid-80s, when men worked only half the amount of unpaid hours that women did. But obviously, this is still a glaring problem - with less time to devote to paid work, women can't help but have a lower average income than men.
But while income inequality exists between men and women in terms of the averages, at least the incomes of men and women performing similar jobs must be the same, right? Wrong again, unfortunately. Statistics Canada shows that women working in the natural sciences, for example, earn about 80 percent of what men in the same field earn on average, while women employed in teaching or the social sciences make 70 percent of the male average; women in managerial positions and those working in business and finance make 60 percent; and those in health-related fields make about 50 percent.
True, even these sorry figures are a significant improvement considering the history of income inequality between the sexes. Since 1997 the income of women has gone up by about 13 percent, while that of men has risen only 8 percent, meaning that women are at least gaining some ground in terms of relative wages. As well, the number of women in the workforce has been steadily increasing. As of 2004, 7.5 million Canadian women had jobs - roughly twice the number with jobs in the mid-70s.
Moreover, while only 42 percent of Canadian women were employed [in the workforce] in 1976, that figure now sits at approximately 58 percent. Perhaps most importantly, women currently make up 47 percent of the overall workforce, in contrast to only 37 percent in 1976.
Theoretically, this increase in the number of women in the workforce - and the increase in the number of women working relative to men - should lead to a reduction in income inequality, as employers will be forced to raise the wages for women in order to keep an increasingly sizable portion of their staff happy.
Unfortunately, conditions in the world of academia would suggest this optimism may be misplaced. In an arena that supposedly prides itself on both openness and progressive thought, women account for only about a third of university faculty members in Canada - far less than the 47 percent share they have in the overall Canadian workforce. Indeed, according to a report comparing Canada to the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand (entitled Women in the Academic Workforce released by the Canadian Association of University Teachers), Canada has the lowest share of women in the academic workforce. Furthermore, only 19 percent of those female faculty members are full professors - and those women that do become full professors have salaries that average roughly $6,000 less than their male counterparts.
So, the facts show a bit of progress for women in the workforce - and a much, much longer way to go. Inequalities in both gender representation and earnings are still marked, and no simple declaration from any federal minister is going to change that.
Planet S Magazine
March 1 - March 14, 2007 Volume 5: Issue 14
Page 14
It's 2007, and the battle for equality has been won, right? Well, no. Regardless of what Bev Oda, the federal Minister for the Status of Women, might say, we're not there yet - and in many cases, we're not there by a long shot.
In terms of the Canadian work force, a quick scan of the most recent statistics shows that, although there has been some progress in moving towards equality in recent years, women still face some very real problems.
According to Statistics Canada, as of 2003 women aged 16 and older took in a pre-tax income that was substantially lower than their male counterparts: while men earned an average of $39,000 women made $24,000 - or roughly 62 percent of the men's earnings.
It only gets worse once unpaid work is considered, as the inequality becomes much more pronounced. According to Status of Women Canada, men undertake only about two-thirds of the unpaid work women do - although the "Department of Small Comfort" would point out that this is actually an improvement. It was much worse in the mid-80s, when men worked only half the amount of unpaid hours that women did. But obviously, this is still a glaring problem - with less time to devote to paid work, women can't help but have a lower average income than men.
But while income inequality exists between men and women in terms of the averages, at least the incomes of men and women performing similar jobs must be the same, right? Wrong again, unfortunately. Statistics Canada shows that women working in the natural sciences, for example, earn about 80 percent of what men in the same field earn on average, while women employed in teaching or the social sciences make 70 percent of the male average; women in managerial positions and those working in business and finance make 60 percent; and those in health-related fields make about 50 percent.
True, even these sorry figures are a significant improvement considering the history of income inequality between the sexes. Since 1997 the income of women has gone up by about 13 percent, while that of men has risen only 8 percent, meaning that women are at least gaining some ground in terms of relative wages. As well, the number of women in the workforce has been steadily increasing. As of 2004, 7.5 million Canadian women had jobs - roughly twice the number with jobs in the mid-70s.
Moreover, while only 42 percent of Canadian women were employed [in the workforce] in 1976, that figure now sits at approximately 58 percent. Perhaps most importantly, women currently make up 47 percent of the overall workforce, in contrast to only 37 percent in 1976.
Theoretically, this increase in the number of women in the workforce - and the increase in the number of women working relative to men - should lead to a reduction in income inequality, as employers will be forced to raise the wages for women in order to keep an increasingly sizable portion of their staff happy.
Unfortunately, conditions in the world of academia would suggest this optimism may be misplaced. In an arena that supposedly prides itself on both openness and progressive thought, women account for only about a third of university faculty members in Canada - far less than the 47 percent share they have in the overall Canadian workforce. Indeed, according to a report comparing Canada to the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand (entitled Women in the Academic Workforce released by the Canadian Association of University Teachers), Canada has the lowest share of women in the academic workforce. Furthermore, only 19 percent of those female faculty members are full professors - and those women that do become full professors have salaries that average roughly $6,000 less than their male counterparts.
So, the facts show a bit of progress for women in the workforce - and a much, much longer way to go. Inequalities in both gender representation and earnings are still marked, and no simple declaration from any federal minister is going to change that.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Wheel to Heal
A friend of mine is biking across Canada to raise money for the Canadian Cancer Society. Here's his site with more info: www.wheeltoheal.com
Monday, February 26, 2007
Hezbollah and war
The ceasefire following the Israel-Lebanon war of July and August 2006 never really felt conclusive. Hezbollah, in particular, only seemed emboldened by the trouble they caused Israel, and by Israel's inability to decisively defeat them. Now they may be preparing for another round of attacks.War preparations
Monday, February 5, 2007
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil
The current ruling party in Sudan, the National Islamic Front (NIF), gained power in 1989. Almost immediately afterwards it began marginalizing and oppressing the people of Darfur, a region in western Sudan roughly the size of France. Around early 2003, rebel groups from Darfur began attacking government offices in the hopes of forcing the government to address these issues. The NIF’s response was sickening.
They created a force made up of the Sudanese army and a militia group known as the Janjaweed. Their sole aim would be to kill as many Darfurians as possible in the hopes of quelling the rebellion. This macabre goal hasn’t been so difficult to achieve. At least 400,000 have been murdered by the Janjaweed and Sudanese soldiers. Over 2 million have been displaced, mostly to eastern Chad. Countless have been raped. And many, in addition to the 400,000, have died during their trek to humanitarian safe-havens. All this makes the Sudanese government one of the great criminals of our time.
Nevertheless, at the moment, I would like to focus our attention, and lay a bit of blame, on someone other than the Sudanese government: the international community. This community has been confronted by the specter of genocide before, and it has done little to stop it then, as now. Yet previously they had a plausible excuse. Little was known about earlier genocides, like the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust, while they took place. Only after the tragic deeds were done did anyone really become aware of the extent of the damage. So, this community could tell itself it would have done something if only it had known.
But now we know all too much about what’s happening in the Darfur; and still not a stir. We, the rest of the world, have been detailing each battle in the Darfur; we know of nearly every village intentionally pillaged and destroyed; we know how many have died, not in hindsight, but in real time; we have analyzed the conflict; and we have debated over whether these acts of aggression should be given the much-worse name of “genocide”. Everything is known but nothing is done.
This is incredibly disappointing for me since I have always felt the adage “The truth shall set you free” was essentially correct. I believed that if all the relevant facts were in, we couldn’t help but do the right thing. Something inside us will just not stand for something like genocide, once it’s clear that genocide is in fact taking place. I believed the truth would compel us. I was wrong.
Complete awareness of this tragedy has not kept the international community from remaining immobile and complicit. And, although thorough knowledge of the facts should elicit enough sympathy to set many on the course of action, it hasn't. This might say something against the relevance of journalism in a world of myopic and selfish states, but not necessarily. The detailing of events and description of suffering good journalists provide the international community with may be the Darfurian’s greatest resource, and only hope. The fact that it is often not enough says more about us, the immobile and the complicit, than it does about the good journalist.
We lie to ourselves when we say the only reason past genocides were not stopped was that we knew little of what was actually going on. It’s clear now that there have been other reasons. It’s clear now that even when genocide is perfectly evident, we will still do nothing. Sadly, we may find that in the long-run, this coldness, this indifference, will hurt us as well, if we ever need the kind of international support Darfurians currently hope for.
There is a Walt Kelly cartoon in which the title character, Pogo Possum, exclaims in a moment of clarity: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
Further Links
Save Darfur
Human Rights Watch - Darfur
They created a force made up of the Sudanese army and a militia group known as the Janjaweed. Their sole aim would be to kill as many Darfurians as possible in the hopes of quelling the rebellion. This macabre goal hasn’t been so difficult to achieve. At least 400,000 have been murdered by the Janjaweed and Sudanese soldiers. Over 2 million have been displaced, mostly to eastern Chad. Countless have been raped. And many, in addition to the 400,000, have died during their trek to humanitarian safe-havens. All this makes the Sudanese government one of the great criminals of our time.
Nevertheless, at the moment, I would like to focus our attention, and lay a bit of blame, on someone other than the Sudanese government: the international community. This community has been confronted by the specter of genocide before, and it has done little to stop it then, as now. Yet previously they had a plausible excuse. Little was known about earlier genocides, like the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust, while they took place. Only after the tragic deeds were done did anyone really become aware of the extent of the damage. So, this community could tell itself it would have done something if only it had known.
But now we know all too much about what’s happening in the Darfur; and still not a stir. We, the rest of the world, have been detailing each battle in the Darfur; we know of nearly every village intentionally pillaged and destroyed; we know how many have died, not in hindsight, but in real time; we have analyzed the conflict; and we have debated over whether these acts of aggression should be given the much-worse name of “genocide”. Everything is known but nothing is done.
This is incredibly disappointing for me since I have always felt the adage “The truth shall set you free” was essentially correct. I believed that if all the relevant facts were in, we couldn’t help but do the right thing. Something inside us will just not stand for something like genocide, once it’s clear that genocide is in fact taking place. I believed the truth would compel us. I was wrong.
Complete awareness of this tragedy has not kept the international community from remaining immobile and complicit. And, although thorough knowledge of the facts should elicit enough sympathy to set many on the course of action, it hasn't. This might say something against the relevance of journalism in a world of myopic and selfish states, but not necessarily. The detailing of events and description of suffering good journalists provide the international community with may be the Darfurian’s greatest resource, and only hope. The fact that it is often not enough says more about us, the immobile and the complicit, than it does about the good journalist.
We lie to ourselves when we say the only reason past genocides were not stopped was that we knew little of what was actually going on. It’s clear now that there have been other reasons. It’s clear now that even when genocide is perfectly evident, we will still do nothing. Sadly, we may find that in the long-run, this coldness, this indifference, will hurt us as well, if we ever need the kind of international support Darfurians currently hope for.
There is a Walt Kelly cartoon in which the title character, Pogo Possum, exclaims in a moment of clarity: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
Further Links
Save Darfur
Human Rights Watch - Darfur
Monday, January 22, 2007
Cage
The other day I heard a performance of John Cage’s most famous piece, 4’33”. Let me describe it: A pianist approaches the piano and takes a seat, ready to perform. The audience, greatly numbered and open eared, wait for it – the music, that is. He lifts the lid and stares at the keys without playing a note. Nothing. More nothing. After a few minutes he closes the lid. This is repeated, making it a total of three completely silent movements. For a full 4 minutes and 33 seconds not a sound is made. Strange, don’t you think?
For Cage, though, it made perfect sense. There is never absolute silence, he came to realize at some point in his life. Every moment is accompanied by some sound, whether profound and unavoidable or, like one’s steady breath, passing nearly unnoticed. And Cage considers these ambient sounds to be music. The whirring of my computer, the squeak of the chair, the shutting of a door down the hall, etc. – all of them taken together make up music. And a performance, in which the pianist remains as silent as possible, not playing a note or moving a muscle, brings just those random sounds to the forefront. Every cough and every scratch in such a spookily quiet auditorium would be heard, and there would be a musical performance of a totally different sort.
Part of me is with Cage. Music, melody, and rhythm, all find their source in the way people talk and the kinds of sounds we hear in life. Our aversion to unsteady rhythms is possibly due to the comfort we got from the nearly perfect beat of our mother’s heart back when we each lived in a womb. So I can understand Cage’s insistence that music and the random sounds we’re so constantly confronted by are not so different after all. Cage isn’t so crazy, I guess.
But another part of me – a bigger and more correct part – thinks Cage is a little off. Not everything is music. Random sounds, especially, are not music. Random sounds are random sounds, and nothing else. When your instincts so strongly tell you something is not quite music, or not quite a piece of art, maybe it is right. I’m not about to convince myself the shuffling of feet in a hallway and the general din of sound one normally hears when it’s busy is anything to get too exited about.
I won’t try to explain what music is because I just haven’t figured that out. But I will commit myself to at least one idea: Music is supposed to move people on some kind of emotional level. And I feel Cage’s 4’33” just isn’t capable of doing that. Let me show you how I know this. I decided to test the theory that music is meant to move people emotionally by performing an a cappella version of 4’33”. While in Vancouver for the Christmas break I stood on a street corner where musical street performers, or buskers, normally go. I decided not to announce the commencement of my performance and just start when I felt ready. Well, I stood there and didn’t make a sound – Cage would have been proud – nor did I move a muscle. It was the perfect vocal performance of his 4’33”. But no one seemed to notice me. People just walked by oblivious of the fact that I was performing a great musical piece. I knew then that Cage’s 4’33” is not music since no one was moved on an emotional level upon hearing my street-corner a cappella version of it.
P.S. This was written before I realized I must have just looked like a guy standing quietly on a street corner. They might have thought I was waiting for a friend, or something.
For Cage, though, it made perfect sense. There is never absolute silence, he came to realize at some point in his life. Every moment is accompanied by some sound, whether profound and unavoidable or, like one’s steady breath, passing nearly unnoticed. And Cage considers these ambient sounds to be music. The whirring of my computer, the squeak of the chair, the shutting of a door down the hall, etc. – all of them taken together make up music. And a performance, in which the pianist remains as silent as possible, not playing a note or moving a muscle, brings just those random sounds to the forefront. Every cough and every scratch in such a spookily quiet auditorium would be heard, and there would be a musical performance of a totally different sort.
Part of me is with Cage. Music, melody, and rhythm, all find their source in the way people talk and the kinds of sounds we hear in life. Our aversion to unsteady rhythms is possibly due to the comfort we got from the nearly perfect beat of our mother’s heart back when we each lived in a womb. So I can understand Cage’s insistence that music and the random sounds we’re so constantly confronted by are not so different after all. Cage isn’t so crazy, I guess.
But another part of me – a bigger and more correct part – thinks Cage is a little off. Not everything is music. Random sounds, especially, are not music. Random sounds are random sounds, and nothing else. When your instincts so strongly tell you something is not quite music, or not quite a piece of art, maybe it is right. I’m not about to convince myself the shuffling of feet in a hallway and the general din of sound one normally hears when it’s busy is anything to get too exited about.
I won’t try to explain what music is because I just haven’t figured that out. But I will commit myself to at least one idea: Music is supposed to move people on some kind of emotional level. And I feel Cage’s 4’33” just isn’t capable of doing that. Let me show you how I know this. I decided to test the theory that music is meant to move people emotionally by performing an a cappella version of 4’33”. While in Vancouver for the Christmas break I stood on a street corner where musical street performers, or buskers, normally go. I decided not to announce the commencement of my performance and just start when I felt ready. Well, I stood there and didn’t make a sound – Cage would have been proud – nor did I move a muscle. It was the perfect vocal performance of his 4’33”. But no one seemed to notice me. People just walked by oblivious of the fact that I was performing a great musical piece. I knew then that Cage’s 4’33” is not music since no one was moved on an emotional level upon hearing my street-corner a cappella version of it.
P.S. This was written before I realized I must have just looked like a guy standing quietly on a street corner. They might have thought I was waiting for a friend, or something.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
This is an introduction
Welcome to my blog - a place to house my thoughts on politics, culture, philosophy, and whatever else I may find of value. Of course, for the sake of readership, I hope the things I find valuable and the things other people find valuable overlap somewhat. If they don't at all, or if they do, but only a little, I'll prepare myself to watch that ship (Readership) sail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)