Blogs, Fashion and a Favour… “Enough” by Nicole Bennett
My sister, Nicole Bennett, was the first person to introduce me to “Fair trade”. She travelled to Burma, India and other countries getting the bad end of the globalisation stick, long before I did, and became passionate about making a difference. She inspired me to want to make a difference too. I’m (hopefully) doing it through my research and writing. Nicole’s doing it through her (soon to be certified) fair trade eco-friendly fashion label “Enough”.
“Enough” is all about knowing when to say “enough is enough” – enough injustice, enough poverty, enough destruction of our environment, (slightly paradoxically, she knows) enough stuff!
These are a couple of photos from her look book shoot last year:
There are more photos of me modeling her stuff of far better resolution on Margaret Zhang’s blog:
http://www.shinebythree.com/2011/01/not-enough-of-nicole-bennett/
…
And now the favour I have to ask:
Nicole is close to winning a free website in a competition. If you could spare 30 seconds of your time to click this link and then click “like” next to her label – “Enough” – then she has a very good chance of winning:
http://www.facebook.com/letsmakeawebsite?sk=app_215628168512018
The competition ends in 3 days and 22 hours from now so PLEASE help her!!! Thank you so much!
…
PS Nicole has been blogging her journey here (although she’s let it lapse a bit…):
http://iwanttobeafashionguru.blogspot.com.au/
Share this article
What Difference Does It Actually Make? Attempting to Compare Individual, Corporate & Military Emissions
Books on climate change tend to finish with a list of things we can do to help: buy a green bag, ride instead of drive, hang up your washing rather than using the dryer, turn off the lights, decrease consumption … The thing is, when it comes to the big scheme of things, comparing our individual actions to the actions of corporations, government and military: what difference does it actually make?
I want to know where I should be putting my effort: is more effective for me to cut my personal emissions, or write letters to encourage governments or corporations to cut theirs? Does the carbon emissions from the military trump that of residential, or the other way around? What is more important? What difference can I actually make? And how?
I’ve spent days searching websites, carbon footprint calculators, emailing data providers, for some kind of comparison. I found some great tools, but failed to find any real answer to my question. It’s made all the more complicated my mixture of measurements. This is my first attempt to pull together what I’ve found, and start some kind of comparison for myself…
Apologies in advance for the mixture of Aussie/British/American spelling & measurement systems. Who is to blame for complicating that process - someone’s idea of a funny joke around 2-300 years ago? Measurements index: 2000 pounds = one tonne; 1kg =0.001 tonnes; 1kg = 2.2 pounds; I’ll mainly use tonnes, kg & grams where I can.
Let me start on a positive note. According to The Guardian, our efforts to reduce carbon dioxide are actually reducing our world emissions (down arrows & percentages per country show the already-industrialised countries are decreasing their emissions, while the industrialising countries are increasing, which makes sense…):
Download PDF here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2#_
What China and the Middle East do is pretty hard to change (— and anyway you hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:5)).
I will try to starting locally… what part of these emissions relates to me? Where are these emissions coming from? In the UK the sources are broken down into:
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6955009.stm
Again I ask: what of this relates to me?
Whether or not I am happy with the situation, I must recognise the fact that Australia rides on the back of America’s defense and security expenses, and shares the same queen as Britain. Countries in the industrialised world are pretty similar and completely interconnected, and have a similar(ish) breakdown of emissions sources. In a round-about way the government, corporate, agriculture emissions of most of the “western world” relate to me – providing products, services and safety to me and others like me.
But, which of these emissions can I actually control?
How much CO2 is created by…? This really awesome visual image interactive page tells you the CO2 created by lots of little things from flying London to Tokyo (1056kg) to your average car (5.1 tonnes) to an apple (80g) http://visualization.geblogs.com/visualization/co2/
Using this simplified calculator: http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/carboncalculator.html we can estimate our footprint for: home, driving, food, and flying. We can see that the worldwide average person uses 4.4 tonnes of carbon, while the typical American (or Australian, including myself) uses approx 17 tonnes.
But, what does 17 tonnes actually mean???? This might be useful for more info on CO2- Frequently Asked Global Change Questions (from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center): http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html I’m still left woefully confused.
What is the relative impact of my actions, compared to with the actions that I have no power over? This pie chart is based on Manchester, but let’s imagine my breakdown is probably similar.
Source: http://manchesterismyplanet.com/shaping-a-low-carbon-economy
So let’s assume that when the defense & governmental services are spread out, we are each responsible for around 7%. How much is that when totaled for the population of the US & countries with tight military relations to them?
Ben from Ben & Jerry icecream uses Oreos to show the possibilities not directly related to carbon/climate change, but related to the budget and all round movement toward a better world (given the need to reduce poverty in order to stabilize population):
I do think some of this military budget can help. Surely the USA doesn’t need weapons to blow up the world 7-times over. Surely the power to do it once is enough…
I have searched and searched for the “military ecological footprint” without much success, other than noting that the US Military accounts for 80% of the US government’s energy consumption, most which is fossil fuel (reported the Pew Research think tank’s Project on National Security, Energy and Climate). And that (apparently) the Department of Defense is “going green” … trying to reduce their “eco bootprint”: http://news.discovery.com/earth/military-green-carbon-footprint.html hm.
I found someone else frustrated by the lack of information: http://karbuz.blogspot.com/2010/05/us-military-carbon-bootprint.html
Karbuz notes that “The Kyoto Protocol (December 1997) exempts the emissions associated with U.S. military activities outside USA.” He also notes that “These emissions are not counted in the national inventory either. In fact, they are not counted in anyone’s inventory.” It is argued that “of the petroleum purchased by the military in 2008, the Pentagon’s Defense Energy Support Center says more than a third—47.4 million barrels—was burned overseas. According to EPA, that translates into 20.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent, more than the total emissions of 129 individual countries. And that figure does not take into account the greenhouse gas emissions associated with other aspects of international military activity—like the dropping of bombs and destruction of buildings—on which there is little scientific literature and even less desire on the part of political leaders to address.” Humph. I don’t really know where to start on checking Karbuz’ sources, though what he says makes a lot of sense. His estimate is for a total “bootprint” of 75 million tonnes.
There’s quite a difference from an estimated 20 tonne footprint per person, and 75 million tonne bootprint for the military.
Stepping back to see even this 75 million in perspective, I may have found the answer to my question:
20 tonnes x 20 million people = 400,000,000 (400-million) tonnes for the collective footprint of Australians. Or in the case of total number of Americans, 20×300 million people = 6,000,000,000 (ie 6 billion tonnes).
So the collective impact of our individual consumption far outweighs the military. (ie 6 billion tonnes for Americans is far greater than 75 million tonnes for the US Military).
Unless the military expenditure is already included in this 20 tonnes each.. but then that would be probably only around 7% (per the Manchester pie chart) and hence only a small part of our individual costs.
I’m not sure exactly where this analysis is going. My mind needs time to process the above analysis, and figure out where it’s at in solving my original question. If anyone has any links that might help such a comparison, please share it with me!
Share this article
Psychology of Violence and Peace
Posting for convenience for a class I’m teaching… I’ll add more later.
Stanley Milgram Experiment and Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment:
Zeitgeist Moving Forward (2011) part 1 – Human Nature
From 9min-40min.
Share this article
Occupying DC
In DC on Tuesday 18th October, I had a chance to observe and talk directly with protestors, learning more about what they are really about. Camps and protests have been spreading throughout the city, I came across two of them. Each were occupied by a mixed age group, mainly students, retirees, and unemployed. Some had been there a couple of days, others a couple of weeks. Some supporters I met who have jobs join the protest even if just for an afternoon, to show their support.
At the first Occupy camp I visited, the protestors had laid their signs around a statue in the center of the park. They pretty much speak for themselves: (click on one to open a slideshow)
At this camp I met “Bear”, a more revolutionary protestor, who told me an elaborate story of his teeth being knocked out in the Egypt protests, many countries having warrants on his life, and his wife being in a prison in Morocco. I must say that seeing a man like him shed tears of passion when envisaging the future of America, was a moving sight. Whether or not his story was true, it certainly was true for him.
At the second camp I was lucky to arrive at the same time as a journalist, who I joined in a short interview with retired police-officer Stephen Fryburg. Stephen had been camping at the site for two weeks, continuing his original pledge to “protect the people of America from injustice.”
Stephen had several interesting things to say:
- “we need to be looking 7 years ahead, not just acting for today”
- “we need a return to the public commons, to valuing the community”
- “we need a Department of Peace” – rather than so much money going into the Defense budget, a Peace budget would work proactively to prevent the defense being required in the first place.
- “we need more of the feminine in politics – too often by the time women get to the top they are acting like men. It would help if more women were in politics and if those women acted like women.”
- “we need to hold politicians accountable for their actions”
The protests have most commonly been criticised for not really knowing what they want. I think this is wrong. The protestors seemed to know exactly what they want, even if they don’t know the legalities and logistics that surround such outcomes.
The journalist asked Stephen “what would success look like to you?”
Stephen replied a clear answer: “above anything else success is the stopping of corporate control of our political parties.”
A year from elections, with Obama having raised 1 billion dollars for his campaign, it seems to be a cause worth fighting for. I have learned from friends here that in America “money is a form of speech” and therefore “speaking” (bribing) by paying for politicians campaigns in exchange for certain policies, is ok. This, the protestors demand, must change. People want their voices to be heard above the voice of money. Power to the people.
Share this article
“Shareholder Capitalism” VS “Socialised Capitalism”
Why did our political leaders bail out banks (who caused the GFC) rather than the public (who lost wealth and jobs as a result)? Why did governments spend trillions of dollars repairing a system that, in the well-known cycle of booms and busts, is destined to crash once again? Why are they bandaiding problems caught up in a powerbroker system that is visibly failing, rather than following the advice of economists like Joseph Stiglitz, who suggest seizing the opportunity for reform? Why do our political leaders seem to support “Shareholder Capitalism” rather than investigating the process of moving toward a “Socialised Capitalism” that might be more constructive?
As the Occupy Wall St movement spreads across the world, people are questioning a number of aspects of our system that they previously left unexamined. One of those is the assumption that Capitalism as we know it today is the only version of Capitalism that is possible. While economists recognize the varieties of Capitalism that exist throughout the world, the varieties can be less visible to the average human eye.
The thing is, the Global Capitalist model as we know it today, that emphasizes neo-liberal policy, provides little regulation to banks and financial industries, and disconnects shareholder profit and public loss, is by no means a fixed and final version of the Capitalist model. In fact, it is clear that such a form of Capitalism is destined for ongoing collapse. In short, it’s time for reform.
What does a shift from “shareholder capitalism” to “socialised capitalism” involve? The Australian School of Business article that inspired this blog entry suggests this shift would involve a move from short-term speculation to long-term investments, from huge corporations to family-owned companies. ‘The differentiating factor lies in the allocation of resources‘. [1]
“Make no mistake,” Andrew Kakabadse explains, “both ideas are market-driven… which is either in short-term deals driven by cash flow to cater to the few or in infrastructure and highly innovative family businesses that deliver long-term wealth to society as a whole. Nobody takes notice of this second model, which has by far the greatest wealth creation potential in the world, despite everything that is happening”.[1]
Hang on a second, which creates the most wealth? What’s more appealing then, shareholder capitalism or socialised capitalism??? Isn’t it in our favour to create more wealth, not less?
I don’t know the pragmatic details of how such a shift could be actualized. How could you stop short-term speculation (derivatives, hedge bets etc) deals going down? How could governments encourage a move from corporation to family-owned companies? How can resources be reallocated to promote a more people-friendly system? It is too late at night, and I’m too tired from recent adventures in Chicago, DC and car accidents (which I’ll blog about soon), for me to contemplate such answers. I will therefore conclude with my take-away message from this article, that some kind of “socialised capitalism” is an appealing direction to be heading… do you agree?
[1] “Off the Record: Spilling the Bilderberg Secrets” Published: October 11, 2011 in Knowledge@Australian School of Business. http://knowledge.asb.unsw.edu.au/article.cfm?articleId=1489
Share this article
“Occupy Sydney”
If you’re not in Sydney (like me) or can’t make it to protest, you can still spread the word about this peaceful protest to change the rules of our global capitalist game.
Stop banks and corporations:
- reducing humans to commodities
- controlling media
- funding both sides of wars
- destroying the environment
SATURDAY 15 OCTOBER 2:30pm
Occupy Sydney:
http://occupysydney.blogsp
Occupy Together:
http://www.occupytogether.
http://www.facebook.com/Oc
http://twitter.com/#!/Occu
Occupy Wall Street:
http://www.occupywallst.or
Occupy Australia:
https://www.facebook.com/p
Occupy Sydney:
http://www.facebook.com/pa
Occupy Melbourne:
https://www.facebook.com/e
http://www.occupymelbourne
Occupy Brisbane:
https://www.facebook.com/p
Occupy Perth:
http://www.facebook.com/pa
Occupy Adelaide:
http://www.facebook.com/ev
Share this article
“Occupy Wall St” – bringing down The Pyramid?
What is #OccupyWallSt? Who are the 1%? Why did it take the media so long to report on it? What do protestor’s want? Are they trying to bring down The Pyramid? Will they succeed?
I am teaching a class on the Philosophy of War and Peace in North Carolina, with a specific focus on the Arab Spring. Yet here in America I might be witnessing the greatest revolution of them all: the “OccupyWallSt” movement, and its children.
When I showed RapNews to students a few weeks ago, I had no idea that it would become prophetically true:
People have been camping out in Zuccotti Park (formerly “Liberty Plaza Park”) for almost a month, and yet the media in America only started reporting on it just over a week ago. Why?
What is “OccupyWallSt”?
OccupyWallSt (and OccupyChicago, OccupySydney, OccupySeasameSt etc) are peaceful protests against the foothold that corporations have over the state of global affairs including economic injustices, environmental destruction, providing weapons to both sides of wars, controlling the media and making politicians their puppets.
Like the Arab Spring, the demonstrations don’t have a leader. It began with 1000 people walking down the street,and 100-200 sleeping in the park. The idea was originally proposed in an Adbusters (an advertisement-free, anti-consumerist Canadian magazine), who suggested protesting against the lack of holding Wall St responsible for their actions re the global financial crisis, global poverty and their pervasive influence on democracy.
Why did the media take so long to report?
Because the media is owned by corporations, of course.
What do protestor’s want?
I will be able to answer this question much better in a couple of week’s time, after I visit Chicago and Washington DC, and even more so after Thanksgiving when I visit NYC… but for now, this is what I can gauge:
Protestors are holding signs like:
“I am a human being, not a commodity”
“I will believe corporations are people when Georgia executes one of them”
“Money for jobs & housing NOT banks & war”
“We are the 99 percent”
Nobel prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Jeff Madrick (former economics columnist for the New York Times and author of Age of Greed: The Triumph of Finance and the Decline of America) recently spoke with Wall Street about what caused the global financial crisis. On Australia’s ABC, Peter Lloyd interviews Jeff Madrick click here. Despite the mainstream media’s attempts to make out the protest is “inefffective action”[4], Madrick says that “The fact is the gut feelings of these people or the informed feelings of some of them because there are a lot of educated people there, are essentially correct. They are correct that Wall Street was the principal cause of the great recession, that greed and outrageous pay was a principal cause and that Washington has not properly dealt with it…”[5]
There is talk of the protest being the left wing response to the “Tea Party”, with one big difference. Madrick notes “These people don’t march to one drummer like the disciplined Tea Party. These people think for themselves, have independent frustrations, have independent agendas.”[5]
Who are the 1%?
According to the Washington Post the top 1 percent are those American households who “had a minimum income of $516,633 in 2010 — a figure that includes wages, government transfers and money from capital gains, dividends and other investment income.” [2] Their average wealth was $14 million in 2009 (down from a $19.2 million peak in 2007).[2]
Documentaries like Inside Job names and shames some of the 1% who were responsible for the Global Financial Crisis (GFC).
Who are the 99%?
The rest of us! Anyone who makes less than $516,633 a year.The 99% are the ones who paid (and are still paying) for the GFC. The 99% want to work, and there’s lots of work to be done, but there’s no money for them to pay one another because the greedy 1% have sucked it out of the system and put it in their pockets.
Ezra Klein in the Washington Post breaks this down further: “the bottom 60 percent earned a maximum of $59,154 in 2010, the bottom 40 percent earned a max of $33,870, while the bottom 20 percent earned just $16,961 at maximum.” [2]
What influence does money have on politics?
For a simple explanation check out the “Story of Stuff”:
and
“Story of Citizens United v. FEC”:
The Pyramid: Laws, Population, Poverty & Ecology
My Master of Peace and Conflict Studies taught me that global politics, economics, military, society and psychology are intertwined and extremely complex. My attention has been drawn to the intersections of growing population, poverty and the ecological predicament they create: (1) For global population to stabilize we must help people at the base of the pyramid out of poverty; (2) We need six Earths to sustain 7 billion people living like Americans and Australians do; (3) Technology will only solve this problem if the people at the top invest in it.
In short, a sustainable habitat and lifestyle for humans requires the priorities of corporations need to change from the legalized goal of profit for shareholders, to the moral goal of improving the lives of people in the world today and in the future.
Let me recap a useful metaphor: The Pyramid. In Preserving The Pyramid: Why things are the way they are I proposed that things are the way they are because they have been designed this way: poverty, religion, education systems, health-related issues – all of our problems are (at least in part) designed to preserve “The Pyramid”.
Changing laws and priorities isn’t easy, particularly when The Pyramid has guardians around all its walls, protecting the wealth and power of the elites at the top.
Are protester’s trying to bring down The Pyramid?
I don’t think so. It seems to me these protesters are using non-violent conflict to demand a more mobile hierarchy of power, a global social and economic pyramid that doesn’t exploit the people it is supposed to protect. That makes them my heroes.
What can be done?
The power in The Global Pyramid today lies with the bankers and stockmarket – people with a license to print money or make money from nothing – shuffling papers, or giving letting others shuffle papers for them. If shareholders invest to make profit, then companies will continue to put profit before people and our planet. Even if shareholders personally care more about life than money, the system has become bigger than it’s parts.
Madrick gives some more specific suggestions: (1) “get over this obsession with austerity economics”; (2) “reinvest in this economy in significant ways”; (3) “we really need a different regulation scheme for Wall Street”. Unfortunately this latter suggestion, Madrick suggests, “will be very difficult to do given the power and money on Wall Street.”[5]
How can the rules that govern Wall St be updated to prioritize life and our ecosystems over monetary profit? Which laws need to be changed? How can the economy be stimulated without needing to fund both sides of wars? How can Wall Street be better regulated?
Will the #Occupy Movement succeed?
“Can I say this will end in complete victory?” Madrick asks, “No, you can never say that. But it may begin to change public opinion enough to give Congress people in Washington the courage of their own convictions. Many of them are disgusted by what’s happening and can’t get any traction for their own ideas and maybe they will begin to get the courage to come forward… The American establishment has the courage to ask one fundamental question: what is Wall Street for? Do we need a Wall Street that takes 40 per cent of American profits? No way. Let’s rethink that. But the American establishment seems anyway afraid to ask that question and we have to start asking that.”[5]
The protesters give me hope. They are turning words into action, demanding their (and our) basic human rights, they are making peace a verb.
References:
[1] ^ What’s behind the scorn for the Wall Street protests?, Glenn Greenwald, Salon, September 29, 2011; accessed September 29, 2011
[4] http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/wall-street-protests
[5] http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3332160.htm
Share this article
Ten ways to change the world
Recently learning about the occupation of Wall Street, I thought it worthwhile to re-post my two cents on ten ways to change the world:
Legally:
1. Change corporation law – redefine “corporation” so that they are NOT treated as separate entities in their own right that can be declared bankrupt in and of themselves. Corporation law must be adjusted to hold shareholders responsible for monetary and non-monetary profits and loss.
2. Change finance / stock market laws – in implementing the above, the ST money market would probably have to go, as would trading Derivatives and Options. The stock exchange would slowdown and be based on long term investments.
3. Change banking laws for money/debt creation and collection – limit their ability to print money via debt, decrease bank’s profits, and maybe all debt cancels after 50 years, I’m not sure. Something needs to be done to regulate them though.
4. Change balance of power in the WB, WTO and IMF – give more votes to the poorer nations and create fairer trade policies
5. Create international tax laws – to crack down on tax havens.
Personally:
6. Philosophically, a self-examination of our values – what makes a life “good”? Two shifts: shift from valuing capital to valuing creativity; and shift from EGO to ECO.
7. Women might reconsider what they find attractive qualities in men – see the attraction of a creative and caring man over a rich and selfish man. Then maybe men will change in suit.
8. Write letters to corporations telling them you won’t buy their product until they stop slave trade and ridiculously low paying 80-hour weeks in sweatshops, and treat their workers in a way they would like to be treated.
9. Public shame of the ridiculously rich – unite in an attempt to decrease the obesity of the rich, and as a consequence decrease the hunger of the poor.
10. See what we might be able to do to campaign to change the laws above.
Essentially I’m talking about setting a limit to the lifestyle of those at the very bottom and very top to the pyramid.
There’s nothing wrong with inequality – we don’t have to earn the same amount, eat the same amount, live in the same way. But there needs to be limits, on both ends. No one in the world today should go hungry, just as greed bastards at the top shouldn’t avoid paying tax and conduct their business in unethical ways.
A smart friend told me: “if you wanna work smart and hard and eat lobster all the time, and if I wanna work little and eat noodles, then that’s cool. But we both should have food and shelter. It’s just a matter of cutting out the extremes and increasing social mobility between the classes.”
It’s about having the freedom to choose where you will be located within The Pyramid: how much power you want to have (ie how involved in politics, corporate world and media), how much and how hard you want to work, and the lifestyle that you want to live.
I will have more to say about the Wall Street situation soon…
If you are not yet familiar with “The Pyramid”, check out the post Preserving The Pyramid: Why things are the way they are. In short this blog proposes that things are the way they are because they have been designed this way: poverty, religion, education systems, health-related issues – all of our problems are (at least in part) designed to preserve power structure that I metaphorically refer to as “The Pyramid”. Click here to see full post
Share this article
20 Essential TED Talks on Peace
A chick working for Online Colleges contacted me to share the following collection of TED Talks for Peace Studies students. I’m working my way through them and thought you might like to watch some of them too. Just click on the heading and the TED talk will open in a new window.
Rabbi Jackie Tabick: The balancing act of compassion
Peace requires a delicate brew of justice, equality and compassion, and what makes it such a tenuous, ethereal concept is striking the proper balance. Although her talk doesn’t much center around politics and economics, but rather religion and the concept of “compassion fatigue,” what Rabbi Jackie Tabick has to say on the matter will still resonate with peace studies students all the same. “You have to, of course, be aware of the needs of others, but you have to be aware in such a way that you can carry on with your life and be of help to people,” she warns — certainly a credo all compassionate, loving people should consider, albeit one difficult to fully implement.
Emiliano Salinas: A civil response to violence
Former Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari’s son Emiliano Salinas very bluntly addresses the violence currently ripping his nation apart — but what he has to can easily apply to different regions and historical periods. Despite his privilege, the speaker expresses genuine concern over Mexico’s descent into violence and drug from a citizen’s perspective, admitting that doing so might very well incite controversy. Salinas’ main thrust involves chastising apathy, because he believes succumbing to fear and perceiving the innocent as “victims of circumstance” allow injustices to keep happening.
Ellen Gustafson: Obesity + Hunger = 1 global food issue
Humanity will never enjoy lasting peace until the basic needs of all people can be met, and nothing illustrates this disparity like obesity issues in developed nations and starvation in their less fortunate counterparts. Ellen Gustafson’s 30 Project hopes to close this gap over the next three decades by altering agriculture itself, namely exporting technology as well as foodstuffs. Having worked with the United Nations World Food Programme, she knows firsthand exactly how both hunger and overconsumption problems burst into existence.
Philip Zimbardo shows how people become monsters…or heroes
As the instigator behind the infamous (and still-controversial) Stanford Prison Experiment, the former American Psychological Association president intimately understands how high-pressure circumstances try individuals and force them into brash actions. Here, Philip Zimbardo talks about his book The Lucifer Effect and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, for which he served as an expert witness once it went to trial. The lecture itself, however, isn’t really about jail reform, but rather the intense psychology behind individuals choosing between perpetuating justice and injustice — a topic all peace students and activists must absolutely understand if they hope to instill permanent positive change.
Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf: Lose your ego, find your compassion
Muslim (or even religious) or not, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf’s coaxing towards global understanding and heightened communication applies to pretty much everyone. He uses his faith as an example of how he understands compassion, but the Qur’an’s teachings extend beyond the boundaries of Islam and frequently parallel those found in Christianity, Buddhism and plenty others. At its core, he touts, the universal message discourages self-centeredness and believes overarching, selfless love stems directly from sloughing off arrogance — a statement even the most ardent atheist can find agreeable.
JD Schramm: Break the silence for suicide survivors
When most people speak of peace, lofty images of eradicating war, famine, pestilence, needless death and other ills typically emerge in the populaces’ mind — but the idea requires application on a micro level to survive as well. Even in the most boastfully “equal” and “enlightened” societies, the mentally ill (most especially the suicidal and suicide survivors) still suffer beneath marginalization and stigmatization. In less than four and a half minutes, business and communications expert JD Schramm illustrates one way to make the world a better place right here at home; not to mention how serious issues don’t always inspire external manifestations.
John Hunter on the World Peace Game
Lasting peace is totally useless its core components never end up in the minds of succeeding generations, and teaching it helps reinforce teachers and students alike. John Hunter’s students play the World Peace Game, where global problems loom on a plywood board, by formulating creative — sometimes even viable! — solutions. He believes their approach, as well as the lessons gleaned during engagement, could very well benefit them (and maybe even the world) for life.
Rev. James Forbes: Compassion at the dinner table
One thing activists and students must absolutely understand is that their goals don’t have to necessarily benefit millions (if not billions) right off the bat. Like Rev. James Forbes elucidates, simple, neighborly lessons his parents instilled in him over regular family dinners possessed a right fair amount of resonance. All it takes is a show of love, support and selflessness to inspire others — who, in turn, inspire others. Who inspire others. And so forth. Initiating many ripple effects instead of aiming for one giant display might very well be what it takes to change things for the better.
Jody Williams: A realistic vision for world peace
Merely touting an event or a protest as “for world peace” doesn’t exactly put an end to violent conflict — participants must engage themselves to the fullest extent personally possible and coagulate specific goals with specific solutions and specific projected outcomes. This Nobel Peace Prize Winner knows that peace requires sustainability, justice, security and equality in order to mean anything, and her TED Talk showcases some amazing women fighting for all four elements. Check out Jody Williams’ particularly inspiring favorites when looking to formulate projects sporting solid structures and more permanent results.
Viktor Frankl: Why to believe in others
TED sometimes posts historical video footage of political, academic and/or social significance for its viewer’s intellectual stimulation; this small-but-piquant talk by pioneering psychologist Viktor Frankl is absolutely essential viewing for many different majors. As a Holocaust survivor, he found himself particularly fascinated by how humans make decisions to create meaning in their own lives, the lives of others and the positive and negative impacts of both. Some might dismiss Frankl’s views as too idealistic for these cynical times, but he still earnestly believed that love begins with trust, understanding and mutually beneficial exchange…and from there, peace.
Shaffi Mather: A new way to fight corruption
Bribery and underhanded bureaucracy stand as probably the most major roadblocks to national and international peace, with sociopathic authority figures supposedly for the people looking out for their own self-interest. With a bit of entrepreneurial spirit and cunning, it might very well be possible to start chipping away at this unfortunate phenomenon and dispense real justice. Shaffi Mather wants to do just that, dissecting the “supply and demand” economy of bribery and formulating plans turning its very structure against itself.
Joseph Nye on global power shifts
Peace studies students (especially those hoping to explore the subject from a geopolitical angle) should understand how hegemonic power theory works, which former Assistant Secretary of Defense Joseph Nye explains here. Pulling directly from human history and using today’s rivalry between the United States and China as an example, he spends nearly 20 minutes explaining the concept. Such massive conflicts obviously challenge international relations and human rights — factors which can easily escalate into violence and other ills — and warrant considerable research to prevent something horrible.
Jessica Jackley: Poverty, money — and love
Jessica Jackley co-founded Kiva.org to provide the impoverished worldwide with “microloans” earmarked for creating economic opportunities and accomplishing professional and personal dreams. Her TED Talk shares some of the stories and people who inspired her before, during and after the nonprofit’s launch — and, of course, some great anecdotes about some of its successes! As its simple title states, everything Jackley has to say revolves around the intersection of love, compassion and charity with the hope of accomplishing lasting goals.
Stefan Wolff: The path to ending ethnic conflicts
Although immediate (or near-immediate) access to news sources make it seem like civil wars, genocide and other ills stemming from ethnic conflict are at an all-time high, Stefan Wolff’s statistics say otherwise. In fact, he’s noted a 10% decrease in the number of civil wars and civilian casualties between the 1990s and the 2000s’ first decade — but that doesn’t mean humanity should settle and start cheering just yet. Juxtaposing “good news” with the horrific, Wolff notes that the decline contains some exceptionally valuable lessons on how to maybe keep the numbers (very) slowly lowering over time to nurture a more sustainable, nonviolent end.
Jamais Cascio on tools for a better world
No matter a student’s major, if he or she desires to change the world and bring about justice, equality and peace, different tools, techniques and recourses are absolutely necessary. Creativity counts for a lot, of course, but WorldChanging.com co-founder Jamais Cascio highlights some of what burgeoning (and even seasoned) activists will need if they desire viable results. Although he doesn’t cover all of them at TED, he estimates that the number sits in the 4,000 range and fascinatingly discusses some of their commonalities.
Thomas Barnett draws a new map for peace
It doesn’t take Thomas Barnett’s extensive defense strategy experience to understand all too well how drawing boundary lines can quickly escalate into some seriously nasty violence. But it takes Thomas Barnett’s extensive defense strategy experience to understand exactly how the governments and civilizations concerned might consider laying them out for maximum peace. His TED Talk covers an impressively wide breadth of relevant military and geopolitical topics, and the undeniable highlight revolves around an ingenious post-Cold War map that pleases more than it piques.
Sunitha Krishnan fights sex slavery
Billions of dollars filter into sexual slavery rings annually — a despicable black market trade exploiting women (even children) worldwide that promotes violence, abuse of all types, horrific human rights violations and obviously stands as a major threat to global harmony. Despite grossly unfair shaming and stigma, Sunitha Krishnan has come out as a former victim and works closely with governments, nonprofits and other organizations to stop others from suffering as she once did. Human trafficking, particularly of the sexual variety, remains an unfortunately overlooked social justice issue, and the world cannot experience true peace if it is allowed to continue.
Kiran Bedi: A police chief with a difference
When looking at facilitating peace on a smaller scale than “THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD,” some students might want to look into prison rehabilitation and reform — and Kiran Bedi makes for an excellent inspiration. It’s true that not everyone can be saved, but this tough-as-nails former prison manager and current Director General of the Indian Police Service definitely found an intriguing way to reach out to the incarcerated. “With community support,” she provided prisoners with educational (even religious) resources and approached them with equal parts compassion and steely determination — a mindset that ended up producing some almost miraculous positive results.
Auret van Heerden: Making global labor fair
Economic justice often walks hand-in-codependent-hand with social justice on the beach at sunset, so deploying one frequently means acknowledging and nurturing the other. Peace studies majors interested in worker’s rights and labor issues are undoubtedly familiar with the fair trade movement, which ensures First World luxuries didn’t pop into existence thanks to Third World exploitation. Auret van Heerden talks frankly about how governments must play a more prominent role in only exporting and importing goods made entirely sans human rights violations — and believes consumers themselves should start caring as well..
Martin Luther King Jr.: I have a dream
While not a TED Talk, obviously, the site hosts a link to this essential historical moment for anyone hoping to relive it or watch for the very first time. Civil Rights activist Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. didn’t invent the concept of nonviolent resistance to social injustice, but he definitely spearheaded one of the world’s most influential applications. Demographics far, far beyond peace studies students will definitely find his most famous speech a riveting, inspiring clarion call for equality and an end to violent conflict.
Some other blog entries from Online College that might be of interest:
8 Most Famous Intellectual Feuds of All Time
8 Academic Stereotypes That Are Totally Outdated
12 College Students Who Helped Shape Social Media History
What’s Inside Apple University?
48 Essential LinkedIn Tips Your Teachers Won’t Tell You
11 Momentous Female Firsts in Academia
Share this article
Getting real: promising population stats & pending challenges
Hans Rosling gives an illuminating TedTalks presentation on one of my greatest ecological concerns: over-population.
Let each box = 1 billion people.
In 1960 it was relatively accurate to divide the world into the “First World” and “Third World”, the “rich” and the “poor”, the “developed world” and “developing world” or the Centre and Periphery.
In 1960 we were 3 billion people. The blue was the 1 billion at the top of the pyramid, dreaming of buying a car and a dishwasher. The green were the 2 billion at the bottom of the pyramid, saving for a pair of shoes and trying to feed their families.
In 50 years much has changed. 3 billion has turned into 7 billion. 4 more boxes have been added to the table.
Brazil, Russia, India, China, (the BRIC nations), are rising up. While the 1 billion blue affluent people now take planes to remote destinations for holidays, another green box of 1 billion people are buying cars, and 3 green boxes equating to 3 billion people are buying bicycles. We still have the 2 billion at the bottom looking for food, and saving for a pair of Havaianas. So an extra 4 billion in the middle mean a wider “gap” but that is filled in with a massive middle-class majority. Maybe we’d think of them as “Second World” or “semi-periphery” nations, or nations within nations seeing as the spread of income within nations also varies greatly.
So comes our familiar (and what I consider to be quite a horrifying) graph:
Now unless we want the whole world to look like the suburbs of Mumbai (no offense to my Indian friends who live there, but it really is a horribly over-populated loud dirty chaotic city), we can’t grow at this exponential rate forever…
Rosling gives a realistic picture:
Only 2 more boxes, 2 billion more people, bringing us up to a grand total of 9 billion. And I guess ideally, eventually, all those boxes are stacked on top of one another at the far right, enjoying their holidays all around the world.
Ho hum, and how is this, pray tell, going to come about?
Many, including Rosling, predict that the formula for a stabilizing population is to decrease poverty. A little family education for women and contraception availability (along with motivating men to wear it and Catholics to allow it) also helps. Apparently this is what the statistics say, loud and clear, so let’s go with it.
With poverty as it stands in 2010, with 2 billion at the bottom, by 2050 this 2 billion will be 4 – hence the 4 boxes on top of one another.
In order to stabilize population at 9 billion, these 4 billion people NEED to be out of absolute poverty – they need to be able to afford food and shoes, and be dreaming of bicycles and cars. If not by 2070 they’ll turn into 8 billion, bringing us up to 17 billion.
Following this line of thinking I see two questions that are imperative for anyone who doesn’t want to share the planet with another 16,999,999,999 people. These are:
- How are we going to ensure those 4 billion are in shoes and getting on bicycles by 2050?
- What can be done so that the 5 billion humans driving cars and flying planes don’t pollute the planet & exploit the non-renewables so much that all 9 billion don’t end up back at square one, scavenging off the left-overs from today’s greed?
Hm, tough questions, did I hear someone mention mining the moon and moving to Mars?
Share this article
A curious boy and a curious old man: the voice behind The Pedagogy of the Oppressed
“The oppressors, who oppress, exploit, and rape by virtue of their power, cannot find in this power the strength to liberate either the oppressed or themselves. Only power that springs from the weakness of the oppressed will be sufficiently strong to free both.” (Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 1970: 21)
Paolo Freire wrote about a sort of revolution in personal and collective freedom.
A Brazilian in the 1970s, Freire’s focus is more on economic/political oppression, and the education (and lack of education) maintains it. He looks at revolutions but says they must be conducted carefully. The must involve reflective participation of all involved.
Freire describes the process of conscientization – a process of unveiling different levels of reality, of becoming aware of the stories and assumptions behind the stories, which combine to create our lives.
It is a process that has no ending. It is a process driven by one thing: curiosity.
If you don’t know him already, I’m pleased to introduce the inspiring old man, Paolo Friere:
Like Paulo Freire, I think it’s good to be a curious child, and a curious adult. In this process we may discover more about ourselves, our world, and the worlds of people around us.
“Freedom is acquired by conquest, not by gift.”
The end of the questioning is the sign of a new form of oppression.
So be curious. Question!!!
Reference:
Freire, Paulo. 1970, The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, (Penguin Education: Baltimore)
Share this article
Follow the bliss
‘I don’t believe life has a purpose. Life is a lot of protoplasm with an urge to reproduce and continue in being… but each incarnation, you might say, has a potentiality, and the mission of life is to live that potentiality.’
Joseph Campbell is an incredible storyteller, spiritual guru, philosopher, academic (comparative religion & comparative mythology), writer, etc etc. Another old dead guy with a wicked sense of humour that I’m sure I would have fallen for in his day.
So “How do you do it?” you may ask. How do you live your life to it’s potential?
Campbell’s advice is: “Follow the bliss.”
‘There’s something inside you that knows when you’re in the center, that knows when you’re on the beam or off the beam. And if you get off the beam to earn money, you’ve lost your life. And if you stay in the cneter and don’t get any money, you still have your bliss.’ [1]
P284-5 Campbell, Joseph, The Power of Myth – Joseph Campbell with Bill Moyers (New York: Doubleday, 1988).
Share this article
Carbon trading: the devil is in the details
Who benefits from carbon trading? Wall street??? De ja vu…
Annie Leonard, my favourite “make it simple and tie a bow around it” chick, reveals the “devils in the details”:
Three problems:
1. Free permits to big polluters
2. Fake offsets
3. A massive distraction
It’s like going on a diet to lose weight. We all know in the long term, diet’s don’t work!
If you wanna reduce carbon there’s a very simple solution (which works for losing weight too): REDUCE YOUR CONSUMPTION.
We need to redesign our lifestyles in a way that reconnects us with the beautiful planet from which we came from and from which we cannot live without. We don’t need carbon to live the good life.
We can get over our addiction to burning carbon in a similar process as getting rid of an addiction to McDonalds. When you come to realise the grotesque nature of consuming McDonalds hamburgers and fries, and you wean yourself off the fat and sugar, you don’t miss it one little bit.
When we start using clean energies, breathing clean ear, enjoying healthier ways of being, working jobs we enjoy that are making our world a better place, we will look back at our lives today in amazement and say:
- how did we ever work so many hours doing jobs we hated?
- how did we allow industry to pump such gross amounts of pollution into our air?
- how did we allow so much destruction to our very source of life?
And (hopefully) we will look back with relief that eventually we did something, we used our creativity to find solution, and to design a better world for ourselves and our children.
I highly doubt we will look back at our politicians debating over carbon tax or carbon trading, with an ounce of honour. It is the ones who decide to tackle the real problems with real solutions, those who make a real difference, that will go down in history.
Share this article
Attempting Politics
Three years ago, before I went back to uni, I voted Liberal. Why? Three reasons: (1) Because my Dad voted Liberal. (2) I wasn’t interested in Politics. (3) I didn’t know the difference between Liberal and Labour (Australia’s Right and Left). Not a good place for any voting citizen to be. And certainly not the best intellectual place for a person who has just enrolled in a Master of Arts. But that was why I was there. I felt an abyss of lacking knowledge and a desire to try to fill it.
I thought in case some of you are in this place it might be worth sharing some of my notes.
Some definitions, and possibly a more accurate and simple model is the continuum above – showing Left to Right.
The picture blow locates key political ideas in a circular diagram, with left and right to the sides, classical liberalism on the bottom, theocracy at the top, and anarchism in the middle. I’m not sure if this is completely accurate, so please let me know if you think some elements might be put around different ways. I’m actually not sure what inspired this, or how I came to locate these where they are.
Of course, as with any definitions, words carry different meanings in different contexts, different places and at different times – as this clip of Noam Chomsky talking about Anarchism, Libertarian Socialism and the development of “renting out our labour”:
Share this article
Youtube & The Global Pyramid
I am assisting the teaching of a master’s subject called The Political Economy of Conflict and Peace, at the University of Sydney this semester. My first presentation was yesterday and in the lead up to it I drowned myself in the political economic papers and books I wrote or read over the last couple of years. And searching YouTube for parts of documentaries that I have found useful in the past. This entry has become a bit of a dumping ground for me to refer and share again at later times… maybe you’ll find some of this random collection of thoughts and clips useful too…
The global economy today:
What does today’s global stage look like? I.e. What is the shape of today’s political/economical/social pyramid: tall or flat? What do people’s lives look like at the extremes?
The Miniature Earth:
Remembering history:
Reminder that things could be worse: The Dark Ages
Cultural changes from Feudalism through to Modernity
Colonialism
- The British
- The Spanish
- In Africa
Industrial Revolution
Globalisation
Different ways to tell the story:
- Realism – analyses the world as states acting on their self-interests
- Liberalism – analyses the world as individuals acting on rational self-interests
- Marxism – analyses the world as classes acting on their rational self-interests
In The Structural Theory of Imperialism (a World Systems Theory), Johan Galtung describes a Conveyor Belt between the periphery of the Periphery (pP) pumping resources through to the periphery of the Core (pC) – this is clear to anyone who travels to places like South America, who grow the best coffee beans, sell them to the “north” for cheap and buy them back in the form of the horrible Nescafe Instant, which is all that is generally on offer to the citizens. Crazy! Same goes for all cash crops from cocoa to cotton, which prevent these people from growing food for themselves, causes slavery and human trafficking,
Recent changes to the money system:
1944 Bretton Woods – IMF, WB, Fixed exchange rates
1947 Marshall Plan – European Recovery
1971 Gold Standard replaced with USD as reserve currency
1973 Oil shocks -> stagflation
1978 China opens up
1980s Reganomics / Thatcherism
1980s Latin American debt crisis
1989 Fall of USSR & ‘socialist’ allies.
1997 Asian financial crisis
2007 GFC – sub-prime lending
Friedman, Thatcherism and Reaganomics, and the rise and effects of Neoliberalism.
Nixon ends Bretton Woods International Monetary System
Introducing the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund
How our system works:
Demystifying Economics - Jim Stanford explains how the Booms and Bust are a necessary part of the system, and why it is the people at the very top of the pyramid who are bailed out, while the people with mortgages and jobs are the ones that have to pay.
Crises of capitalism (an RSA Animate)
The Goldsmith’s tale explains the history of money:
The South financing the North – The End of Poverty?
Sweatshops
Who owns the Federal Reserve?
John Perkins - Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
Institutions and regimes and “structural adjustments” - Bill Clinton apologises
]
IMF, WB and WTO – who is helping who? a longish news clip
Dambisa Moyo – Dead Aid - Is Aid Killing Africa?
The myth of a “trickle-down” effect
Simms shows that on our current trajectory it would take 15 planets’ worth of earth’s biocapacity to reduce poverty to a state where the poorest receive $3 per day. In other words ‘we will have made Earth uninhabitable long before poverty is eradicated.’[1]
Tax havens
Did you know that half of all world trade currently passes through tax havens? Apparently they ‘allow rich people and corporations to stash trillions in assets that could provide governments with at least $250 billion a yearin tax revenues.’[2]
Wall St = the new world government - Inside Job
The roots of the problem – greed, fear and the laws that encourage it:
The profit motive, and the power of “corporation”
Laws of Incorporation – What kind of person are corporations? What guides their morals? THE BOTTOM LINE.
Connection with fear and The Power of Nightmares
“At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neo-conservatives and the radical Islamists. Both were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world.These two groups have changed the world but not in the way either intended. Those with the darkest fears became the most powerful. Together they created today’s nightmare vision of an organised terror network. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. Those with the darkest fears became the most powerful. The rise of the politics of fear begins in 1949 with two men whose radical ideas would inspire the attack of 9/11 and influence the neo-conservative movement that dominates Washington. Both these men believed that modern liberal freedoms were eroding the bonds that held society together. The two movements they inspired set out, in their different ways, to rescue their societies from this decay. But in an age of growing disillusion with politics, the neo-conservatives turned to fear in order to pursue their vision.”
This three part documentary traces the rise of Neo-Conservativism in the U.S., with “disillusioned liberals” like Irving Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz looking to Leo Strauss’s political thinking to come together with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Neo-conservatives come to power under the Reagan administration, using fear to unite the citizens (and unite with the radical Islamists) in a war against the Soviet Union. It traces this alongside the radical Islamist movement back to Sayyid Qutb’s visit to the U.S. to learn about their education systems but sees the “corruption of morals and virtues in western society through individualism” and returns to Egypt to and starts the movement. Qutb is executed in 1966 and one of his followers, a–Zawahiri, later becomes the mentor to Osama bin Laden. Then of course, the two radical groups then face each other head on in the “War on Terror”.
A much shorter and funnier version of the above: Pirates and Emperors
Culture as the Ideological Battleground of the Capitalist World-System
Positive impacts of the rise of Capitalism:
- Women’s rights
- Technology and communications
- New forms of creativity, variety, learning from other cultures
- Quality of life of some
Negative impacts:
- Quality of life of others
- Depression, cancer, stress, baldness and obesity of people at the top
- Loss of our connection to ancestors and to each other
- Hunger and dehumanization of people at the bottom
How The Pyramid is changing in the 21st century
Jim Stanford – Economic Crisis:
Capitalism: A Love Story
Serge La Touche on Degrowth
Microfinance – lending money to women in the third world
Investment in Cradle to Cradle design – turning waste into food:
Investments in “Social Business” – Mohammed Yunus
The Eagle and the Condor (the meeting of the Mind and the Heart, of Masculine and Feminine, of the knowledge and wisdom of our world, from Western individualism, to Eastern collectivism, to Indigenous connection to the land)
Bill Gates: How to Fix Capitalism? “Creative Capitalism” (LOVE this!!!)
Changing the economic system with an email
10 ways to change the world:
Legally:
1. Change corporation law – redefine “corporation” so that they are NOT treated as separate entities in their own right that can be declared bankrupt in and of themselves. Corporation law must be adjusted to hold shareholders responsible for monetary and non-monetary profits and loss.
2. Change finance / stock market laws – in implementing the above, the ST money market would probably have to go, as would trading Derivatives and Options. The stock exchange would slowdown and be based on long term investments.
3. Change banking laws for money/debt creation and collection – limit their ability to print money via debt, decrease bank’s profits, and maybe all debt cancels after 50 years, I’m not sure. Something needs to be done to regulate them though.
4. Change balance of power in the WB, WTO and IMF – give more votes to the poorer nations and create fairer trade policies
5. Create international tax laws – to crack down on tax havens.
Personally:
6. Philosophically, a self-examination of our values – what makes a life “good”? Two shifts: shift from valuing capital to valuing creativity; and shift from EGO to ECO.
7. Women might reconsider what they find attractive qualities in men – see the attraction of a creative and caring man over a rich and selfish man. Then maybe men will change in suit.
8. Write letters to corporations telling them you won’t buy their product until they stop slave trade and ridiculously low paying 80-hour weeks in sweatshops, and treat their workers in a way they would like to be treated.
9. Public shame of the ridiculously rich – unite in an attempt to decrease the obesity of the rich, and as a consequence decrease the hunger of the poor.
10. See what we might be able to do to campaign to change the laws above.
Essentially I’m talking about setting a limit to the lifestyle of those at the very bottom and very top to the pyramid. There’s nothing wrong with inequity. As my friend said, “if you wanna work smart and hard and eat lobster all the time, and if I wanna work little and eat noodles, then that’s cool. But we both should have food and shelter. It’s just a matter of cutting out the extremes and increasing social mobility between the classes.”
For more on related issues check out:
Summing up our ecological context: Where we are, where we are going, and how
Overpopulation: The Elephant in the Room
When Jim Sanford visited Sydney: The Paper Economy
Trying to do something about chocolate slavery: Chocolate slavery and people with agency
On women and men’s sexual frustration: Empowering women and the role of men
Switching between sides – the paradoxes one faces - Leftist Idealist or Rightwing Conservative
1. Stop exploiting them 2. Look at ourselves Helping Developing Nations
Links to more docos - Free documentaries
References
[1] Andrew Simms, ‘Trickle-Down Myth’, New Scientist (18 Oct 2008). p. 49. Andrew Simms is the policy director of the New Economics Foundation in London. In this article Simms steps through the mathematics to show the system is designed such that for the poor to get ‘slightly less poor, the rich have to get very much richer’. This means it would take ‘around $166 worth of global growth to generate $1 extra for people living on below $1 a day’.
[2] Susan George, ‘We Must Think Big’, New Scientist (18 Oct 2008). p. 51.
Share this article
Other Gaps in the Distribution of Knowledge
Last week I wrote about the gap between school and life-there-after, and I gather from the feedback quite a few of you agree.. Well today I’m going to write about some other gaps in our society’s distribution of knowledge that I’m sure many of you have noticed:
1. A gap between knowledge within the university and the rest of the world.
Deep and wonderful ideas that could inspire and improve the lives of many seem to get lost in the theoretical and abstract language, meticulous referencing and practically incomprehensible vocabulary and word games of the world of academia.
Not that these words and rules don’t have their purpose. I appreciate the ability to find a know exactly where an idea has come from, to know that the right person is getting their deserved credit and that the ideas being discussed have a history as opposed to being pulled out of thin air. Even the complicated language has its use, and brings with it much satisfaction once you actually “get it,” (after numerous readings, google searches and flicking between pages.) The world of academia serves an important purpose but it’s not for the layman, and if the ideas are not translated into an everyday language their potential goes unrealised.
So that’s one gap that I’d like to see bridged a little more.
2. A gap between disciplines within university walls
Politics can get in the way of sharing ideas between disciplines within the university walls.
For example in a class about historiography (the study of the different ways history has been written) I learned that history and archaeology rarely talk. The former looks at written stories, and the latter makes guesses at stories behind objects. To me, these are two parts required to tell one and the same story of our collective past, joined not only with archeology but with biology and and cosmology and philosophy as well.
Many new “inter-disciplinary” opportunities are arising. Working in “Peace and Conflict Studies”, which is consciously an mixed-discplinary discpline, I feel lucky to be one of a growing number that are seeking to bridge this gap through cross-discipline conferences, cross-discipline research opportunities, and cross-discipline subjects that look at sociology, philosophy, psychology, political science and religious studies all from a peace vs violence lens.
3. A gap between the exclusive fundamentalist brands of religion and inclusive ones
I’ll take Fundamentalist Christianity as my example, noting that the general points may apply to fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist versions of other religions too. Fundamentalist Christians are brought up with the belief that either:
1. Their religion is completely, literally, absolutely true which means they better behave so they don’t be sent to hell; or,
2. Their religion is wrong, life is meaningless so they may as well steal, commit murder or just kill themselves. What’s the point in struggling through eighty years or so of life if when you die you end up in the same state of nothingness as everyone else?
It’s all or nothing. The bible is either all true, or it can be put out with the rubbish. But is the history, the books, and the ideas that religions are based upon really so black and white?
Does looking at religions in their historical context show, that as with any writing, the motivations of the writers, the limitations of their sources, and the limitations of our own interpretive techniques, render black and white as two ends of a continuum, with myriad grays and colours visible in between?
Might the writings that proved enlightening for a particular group of people at a particular point in time, contain more-than-literal meanings in the mythos and midrash that the writers used to convey these messages?
One result of this all or nothing – “we are saved, you are going to hell” – mentality, is that many people judge all religions on the rules and destructive exclusivity of the fundamentalist versions, and write-off religion altogether as a man-made power-hungry institution.
I think that if one goes back to the philosophical roots of the religions, reading the “holy books” in their intended historical context, filtering the words through today’s higher levels of post-slave and (in general) post-slaughter-the-enemy morality, and explores the ideas in combination with one’s own experience and our scientific understanding of the universe and evolution… well I think that in this combination, religion does have something to offer.
Fundamentalist versions of religions are not the mainstream, but it is from these extreme versions that many non-religious judge religious on. In Australia the largest Christian denominations are Catholics, Anglican and the Uniting Church, all who (except the “Sydney Anglicans”) are inclusive of other religions (ie believe all religions connect with the divine powers behind life), read the bible in historical context, and engage in interfaith dialogue (see: http://assembly.uca.org.au/rof/interfaith-dialogue).
I think that in order to bridge the gap between fundamentalism and non-fundamentalism, it is good for us to study the gray areas, and to comprehend the alternative interpretations and meanings for ourselves. This brings me to my next point:
4. The gap in distribution of knowledge about others’ religious traditions (without presenting them as “evil” and “wrong” – especially if you are brought up inside one religion, or atheist)
I think the cross over and sharing between different religious traditions is not encouraged enough. I also don’t think that the connection between religion and science doesn’t have to be explored as either/or, but both/and.
Why shouldn’t all religions learn from the connections that others have had with the divine powers at play behind life? Why would any be so arrogant to think they know it all and that, call it “God” or “Allah” or “The Great Unknown” wouldn’t reveal itself in different ways to different groups of people around the world?
Doesn’t it make sense that the nature of science would be to explain how the universe began and how we evolved, and religion and philosophy to contemplate why and what is good or bad about the various ways we can use this gift?
Even if the expansion of the universe is a completely random event, the fact that we exist in a state that is able to contemplate our own existence is pretty fantastic. For me the magic of life the whole evolutionary process in the realm of divine awe. Our psyche’s, our conscious and unconscious, and the relationship between my unconscious and your unconscious, is pretty amazing.
Just because we can put some names and describe the process of one particle becoming two doesn’t negate the spark of magic that this process involves. And from two particles, into atoms, into life forms, and into planets and into you and me… how can we not think “wow”!
Who is to say that science doesn’t put into words the processes that a macrocosm we personify and call “God” sets in motion? Not a man in the sky, but a live and conscious universe made up of smaller conscious beings including you and me? I don’t see the incompatibility between religion and science, I really don’t. This, again, leads to another gap:
5. A gap in terminology to describe non-religious people who still believe in “something”
I believe this is a big gap in our language – a name for the large and growing number of people who have rejected religion on moral grounds, and hence hesitate to identify with any particular religion however who also don’t consider themselves atheist, or even agnostic.
A name for (what seems to me to be) a growing majority of educated people who are happy to accept the unknowns, and still think themselves as something beyond the boundaries of their own skin and short lives.
This group doesn’t seem to feel a need to name it, to join any institution that tries to gain power over them from it, and who allow their intuitive senses to connect to the mysterious energies at play and use this connection (via meditation, prayer, intentions) to benefit their or other’s lives.
Drawn to philosophical ideas like Resolution Theory in the book Shantaram, Taoist notions of good and evil being two sides of the same coin, and what I am learning about in my studies of Panentheism and Process Theology. As you can probably tell, this is me. I like the word Panentheists – the belief that everything is inside “God” – that is, our universe is a macrocosm with a similar relationship to us, as we have to the organs and cells that make up our body.
5. A gap between the knowledge distributed to rich and the knowledge distributed to poor
Finally I just want to mention the gap in knowledge distributed to rich and poor, as I reflect on how education is used to keep the poor poor and make the rich richer.
Bridging the gaps…
The ability to bridge the above five gaps, I think, lies in the hands of those with power: religious authorities, governments, media, legal institutions, and economic regulators.
Like every idea I explore lately, particularly in relation to distribution of knowledge and hence control of power, I return to The Pyramid. That power-hungry annoying big monster pyramid that gets in the way of all my idealism. But more about these gaps and bridges and using the pyramid for good and not evil, some other day.
Photo: Machu Picchu, the “Lost city of the Incas” so high up in the mountains of Peru… just one example of the ingenuity of mankind. December 2008.
Share this article
The gap between school and real-life
Does school prepare us for life in the real world? Is knowledge passed from academia to public spheres? Are we learning from the past, or do we continue to make the same mistakes? How well do we really understand ourselves and others in our geopolitical, social, and historical context?
It seems to me there are major gaps within our distribution of knowledge.
Today I want to focus on one of those gaps, the gap between life in school and life after school. Over the coming weeks I will look at other gaps, and then at ways they might bridged.
Schooling in Australia comes down to one result: the HSC. (For non-Australian readers, HSC = Higher School Certificate)
This seemingly life-determining series of exams is ridiculously stressful for students. Suicide, chronic fatigue and depression are among many of the disasterous mental and physical consequences.
After the HSC I have noticed that many students are left feeling high and dry.
The choices may seem too many, or too few, but either way many (including myself ten years ago) feel confused about what to do next. I mean, how many 17 year olds know what they want to do when they leave school? And of those who at the time thought they know, how many look back ten years later and realise that, well, they didn’t?
Whether motivated by guidance from friends, siblings or parents, by money-incentives, or some other not-very-well thought through reasoning, many of us go straight into university and waste 1-3 years doing, or starting to do, a degree in something irrelevant to our future.
Even if we are one of the new generation of Aussies who head overseas for a ‘gap year,’, most return home to face the same dilemma that they faced when they left: they still don’t ‘know what they want to do when they grow up.’
So the next stage of the majority’s life story ends up either drinking at university parties as they go to minimal classes to earn that obligatory piece of paper; or working a 9-5 job answering phones, waiting tables, or driving trucks, in order to pay off the credit card or HECS debt.
Maybe things have improved in the eight years since I finished school, or maybe the non-denominational (a la fundamentalist) Christian school I attended was an exception? If so please do point out my errs.
From my observation the gap between finishing high school and finding one’s role in society is a widely felt phenomenon in Australia, and maybe among other western-capitalist countries too.
Through trail and error of various degrees and jobs I have discovered many career options that at high school I never knew existed. Why didn’t I know about these things???
I think the problem with our schools comes down to one thing: The Pyramid. (See blog entry: Preserving-The-Pyramid-The-Reason-Things-Are-The-Way-They-Are).
Instead of encouraging a thirst for knowledge and the intrinsic rewards that comes from creativity, our schools seem to encourage a regurgitating of words and formulas in order to gain the extrinsic rewards of good marks, good university & eventually a good salary.
All of this so that you can pay back your university debts, get a mortgage and work towards the Australian Dream: owning your own house.
Translation: join the system, perpetuate The Pyramid.
Those who control the distribution of knowledge, controls the minds of the people.
Now, please don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing against The Pyramid. Unless I have some visionary solution to power paradoxes of the human condition I don’t feel I am in a place to criticise. The Pyramid might be the only way a society functions, so maybe our education system is the best it can be.
So let’s put The Pyramid in the parking lot for a moment. How could these gaps in education, should The Pyramid allow it, be bridged? These are some suggestions:
1. Empower children to think for themselves.
I think children could be more involved in the direction of their learning (as in Montessori schools). I think the focus should be on teaching them how to think rather than what to think, helping them develop the critical thinking skills that allow them to do this.
2. Encourage a desire to learn rather than presenting it as an obligatory task.
Learning shouldn’t be something forced upon you. It seems so negative that a child is told they have to do their homework or else get in trouble from the teacher.
Instead, learning should be presented as the luxury it is. It should be presented as the passing on of the cumulated knowledge of humanity, with which it is up to the students to expand and build upon during their lifetime.
Isn’t that a much more exciting proposition than punishment/reward scenarios of learning just to get good grades?
3. Value creativity over conformity
Learning opens up the gates for a child’s imagination, for them to discover their individual potential. Learning makes people more interesting, gives people a better sense of humour, and enhances one’s quality of life in ways that money can’t.
Creativity is a source of pleasure and purpose, but it requires children’s confidence in themselves – getting over the fear of peers, parents or teachers rejecting or ridiculing what they create.
4. Teach more practical & useful skills.
Decision making, goal setting, managing savings, investing in shares or property, avoiding accumulation of debts, solving conflicts, understanding politics and democracy, and the history of civilisation on the whole.
Why don’t schools teach students a general introduction to university disciplines including philosophy, theology, development studies, anthropology, peace studies, and the like?
5. Notify students that the roles that society defines are not the only roles. They can create their own role, their own box.
Students should be provided with a broad perspective of their place in the world, be able to see their perspective in the scheme of other people’s perspectives, and see the similarities and see what factors have influenced the differences. We can’t know everything, but we can develop an understanding of the general areas knowledge or skills that are available, and with an understanding that new areas of knowledge and skills are created every day.
Students should be given the opportunity to find jobs that they will enjoy, that are not a means to an ends but are a day-to-day source of personal growth and giving back to society.
Maybe I’m too idealistic. Yes, I’m sure I am.
I do understand that someone has to take out the trash…
Of course in my mind this is done by computerised machinery, all trash is biofriendly and so even this job is maintained by creative-thinking programmers.
I think if we were encouraged to have a desire to learn, an ability to critically evaluate our world, and to think creatively, we as a society would evolve in the most incredible ways.
Creativity, motivation and critical awareness have the potential to stimulate innovation to new levels, foster ongoing improvement in all areas of life, from local to global and beyond.
Check out what Ken Robinson has to say on the issue in the TED talk “schools kill creativity”:
Ah yes, if only the world could be recreated by creative minds…
Picture:
With some other idealistic visionaries including Dr Vandana Shiva, winner of the Sydney Peace Prize 2010.
PS:
If you want to follow this blog on facebook, the facebook page is: http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Adventures-with-Ideas-Juliet-Bennetts-Blog/108739765813581
Share this article
Rethinking “The Pyramid” – do alternatives exist?
I want to revisit the social, economic and political pyramid I discussed in my last post: Preserving the Pyramid- the Reason Things Are the Way They Are, sharing my evolving thoughts on the question: do alternatives exist?
While it seems overall human civilisations only really know the pyramid, if we think outside the square – could any other shapes work?
When I first considered this question I drew a number of shapes:
Could we operate in a circle, a flat line, a square, a rectangle, a diamond?
“How about a a flatter pyramid?” I asked my friend.
“That’s Communism,” he replied. “It tends to make everyone poor, and just a few mega rich.”
I nodded woefully. Over time I have looked to other sources of inspiration.
In animal kingdoms…
In nature…
In space…
Inside ourselves…
From our minds…
[1]
.
.
.
I think my favourites are 1. THE SPIRAL 2. THE WEB 3. THE HUMAN BODY
Spirals might have interesting usages but probably not in this context. It makes me think of the pyramid on steroids, kinda what we have now – with the rich getting richer and the poor poorer in a manner that is spiraling with no limits.
Webs on the other hand are an interesting idea. Could a political, economic and social structure be more like a web than a pyramid?
Does the World Wide Web already provide a platform for this? Maybe.
When it comes to the organismic shape of the human body, I have to wonder: Do the my body’s organs and cells operate in more of a pyramid organisation structure, with my brain at the top and a hierarchy of body parts below it? Or does the networking of my spine through to the individual nerves throughout my body, the connections between my body and my mind, connections between my heart and veins, between lungs through alveoli and capillaries and through to feed oxygen to the cells in the tips of my fingers- is this more like a web?
Are our brains like pharaohs, monarchs, dictators and bankers, sitting at the top enjoying the work the rest of the body does? Or are our brains, spines, hearts, lungs, nerves and senses showing us a different system? Could our society be modelled on this?
If my foot and my arm squabbled about taking over from my brain, my body wouldn’t function so well. I need my feet to walk, I need my mouth and voice box to talk, just as right now I need my fingers to type. If my stomach goes on strike, my taste buds aren’t going to have much fun. If my hand decides not to feed me, I will die. Similarly if my hand feeds me endless amounts of McDonalds and chocolate – seeking short term pleasures at the cost of long term body functions – I will also die a relatively quick death. Similarly if those up the top of the human pyramid neglect those at the bottom, it won’t take long for the whole pyramid to fall.
While my entire body seems to be an integrated web, when it’s a working system some parts do seem to have more fun than others: I’d rather be a brain than a finger, just as I’d rather be a taste bud than a stomach. I’d prefer to be rich than poor in the capitalist world. But one without the other doesn’t really work. All body parts are happier the more happy/healthy the other parts.
At the end of the day, whether we have a system based on a pyramid or a body,
What I would really like to do is draw a big circle around the pyramid and label it “ecosystem”.
Look at your $1 bill and you will see this symbol is already kind of there…
A pyramid with a circle around it.
The “All-seeing eye” – “a universal symbol representing spiritual sight, inner vision, higher knowledge”, is a Masonic symbol that is a “mystical distortion of the omniscient (all-knowing) Biblical God”[1] which goes back as far as the ancient Egyptian god Horus.
Rather than representing an omniscient God, the all-seeing-eye makes me think of the growing fascist-nature of our governments, and the rich/elite/powerful who control them.
That’s not so bad, in my mind, as long as there is that circle around it which (ironically) is already there on the $1USD note!
I think it is really important to remember what our social, economical and political model is located inside – an environment with limits.
The great pyramid of human civilisation can outgrow itself and if our Pyramid bursts through this circle there will be no humans left to build another one.
Can the pyramid work within our planetary limits? Maybe. I think it is possible for everyone to live out their lives playing their individual roles that altogether work for the good of all. I think it’s possible for us to have different levels of power and economic wealth, so long as together we create an anatomically correct system – that is, one that fits proportionately within our ecological circle. In order to do this, population must be limited, hence poverty must be limited, the crazy wacky food production lines must be changed (I just watched Food Inc. ewwww!).
If human civilisation is to be a functioning body, we have to re-think the roles and functions of its constituents.
There must be rewards of all the roles and each should be designed to be desirable and fulfilling. Just as unemployment might be depressing, so is living 70-hours a week in a concrete prison in the sky.
I wonder what would the social/economic/political roles look like if we were living within our ecological limits?
Photos/credits
[1] http://www.crossroad.to/Books/symbols1.html
Most from google images – forgetting to take note of owners, although most have their websites on them.
That great photo of the snails is from WAPPY AL – http://www.flickr.com/photos/jackslad/502468776/
Share this article
Preserving “The Pyramid” – the reason things are the way they are…
“Things are the way they are because they have been designed to be this way,” a friend of mine said. “It’s all about preserving The Pyramid.”
What’s The Pyramid? Let me tell you…
“The Pyramid” (according to my friend) is a method of social, economic and political organisation that is at the core of every human civilisation from the Egyptians to Hindus to Monarchies to Capitalism.
All the big political conflicts come down to one thing: The Pyramid.
Conflicts are either initiated by people on top pulling strings to preserve or expand the present Pyramid; or conflicts are initiated by revolutionaries who disagree with the structure and seek to turn The Pyramid up-side-down.
As I thought through history, I realised my friend was right. The English and Spanish Conquest of the Americas, India, China… We seize land to expand our pyramid. We seize resources to secure our pyramid. We take down any leaders who don’t agree to it’s rules. We call anyone who challenges the Pyramid a “terrorist” and “national threat”. Why? Because they really are a threat to this hierarchy – and the people at the top do not like that.
From the Egyptians:
To the Hindu caste system:
To Capitalism today…
Globalisation has seen the pyramids of once isolated civilisations join together to create an even bigger pyramid. And as the upper and middle class grows, so does the lower class, hence as our global population rapidly expands, so does The Pyramid. The rich get richer as the poor get poorer.
In the global pyramid, the top 0.5 billion earning over $20,000 a year (of which many earn far more, and a small number earning far far more than that) while 60% of the world’s population live on less than $2 a day.
The pyramid of wealth distribution looked at in another way shows the top 1% taking 2/3rds of the US national income…
How is such inequality allowed to persist?
Through a carefully constructed system that involves a “social distribution of knowledge” [1]. We educate some (the children of the monetarily rich) to make the system work for them, and educate others (the children of the not-so-money-rich) to work for the system.
The power know the formula: give people a reason to live (eg through career path or religion or an ideology) and educate them enough for their societal roles – no more, no less.
The system teaches people to obey authority, not to question it. It encourages conformity, even to the extent (as some believe) of putting flouride in our water to us docile.
According to my friend’s theory, all the “evils” of the world are there for a reason: because they are a part of the pyramid.
- Poverty is there because a massive base is needed to support the weight of the top.
- War is there because it secures the resources required to make weapons and keep the system running as those at the top require.
- Lack-of-education is there because in the social distribution of knowledge, not everyone needs to know stuff. All you need to know is what your role requires you to know, no more, no less.
- Religion is there because it gives people a purpose. It explains the unknowns, it controls the masses, and it gives people hope for a better life next time round – be it up in heaven or in one’s reincarnation.
- Debt is there because it contracts a permanent slave of those people and countries who work to repay it.
The destructive cycle is this:
- as we seek to join the upper class or move up the middle classes (a good thing), we inadvertantly
- increase the lower class – not such a good thing if this means 12 hour work days behind a sewing machine or being sold as a sex slave
- then, as the base of the pyramid increases, so does poverty (families have less food and less land to provide)
- then, as poverty increases, education decreases and people have more babies
- the global population continues to explode
- as the earth’s resources receed it seems inevitable that, at some point in the future, billions of people’s lives are going to be lost.
What happens when someone challenges the authority of The Pyramid? They get taken down. Just look what they are doing to Julian Assange!
Should we challenge The Pyramid? Maybe. But to be honest I’m not sure that we can.
History has shown Animal Farm scenarios time and time again: revolution upon revolution. When oppressive humans are kicked off the planet and animals declare themselves equal, it’s only a matter of time before pigs (or some other animal) will rise up and become the new oppressor.
The Pyramid has been torn down and built back up by a numerous groups who then take the place of the new rich and powerful. Whoever wins the battle replicates the model’s inequalities, and rewrites history to produce a new “social distribution of knowledge.” It’s an endless cycle.
Geez this is depressing. Where’s my Christmas spirit? Don’t get me started on Christmas… the capitalistic “Christian” tradition that is based on a pagan holiday inadvertantly idolising the “god” that declared “he” never wanted to be idolised. Ah sorry, I shouldn’t write it off like this. It is a lovely family time. I’ll try to uplift my words from here on…
If we can’t fight The Pyramid, should we embrace it? Maybe. Maybe there are ways of making it work without the above evils, I’m not sure.
Is inequality ok? Maybe. It’s impossible for everyone to be equal. And unappealing – diversity makes the world a more interesting place. And whose to say that the rich people are “rich”? Are those at the top of the pyramid “better off” than the people at the bottom? Life can be pretty boring if you have everything without the challenge. The poor might be much richer in different ways…
But it can’t be denied that it’s pretty shit that two-thirds of the world have no place to shit.
Maybe it’s best to live one’s life somewhere in the middle. Probably myself and most of you think of ourselves as somewhere in the middle (although earning more than $20k pa places us in the upper).
Even in the top segment of the pyramid if you have a mortgage and particularly if you have children, then choices become even more limited - we are culturally moulded to work for the system. I wonder how many people at the very very top are consciously aware of creating or perpetuating it?
Is there anything wrong with being a cog in this wheel? No. I guess not – as long as you are happy.
What if this happiness is just an illusion? Maybe living in an illusion is the best place to be.
Should we be putting our efforts into finding ways to make the pyramid work for us? Maybe. But maybe not. Alternatives may exist, I’m not yet sure.
The key hypothesis I’d like to propose to you is this: things are the way they are because they have been designed this way: poverty, religion, education systems, health-related issues – all of our problems are (at least in part) designed to preserve The Pyramid.
When my friend first shared this theory I protested, now I’m coming around. Love to hear your thoughts…
Pictures:
I have a habit of grabbing pictures off Google Images and not recording the copyrights… if anyone would like me to acknowledge their work where I haven’t please do let me know.
References:
[1] The Social Construction of Reality, Berger and Luckmann 1966
MORE BLOG ENTRIES ON THE TOPIC:
Some great YouTube clips explaining our economic and political system
Where are we now, where are we going, and how?
Share this article
Protests and balls, another Wikileaks rally (Town Hall 530pm TODAY), and the Left-Right Paradox.
Today the Westminster Magistrates’ Court will decide the fate of Julian Assange, well at least whether or not he will get bail. And so while I haven’t even told you much about last Friday’s rally yet, I had better briefly inform any Sydney readers that there will be another rally at 530pm, again at Town Hall, today. [1]
Professor Emeritus Stuart Rees (from Sydney Peace Foundation, and my friend and mentor) will be speaking, so if you are Sydney, do come along. It’s sure to be informative, conducive to Assange’s case, as well as a good laugh (if anyone knows Prof. Rees’ humour, you will understand why).
…
Anyway, returning to the story of the 30 hour Peace vs Defense saga that I began to tell you about yesterday in my entry Protests, Balls, Left and Right.
In one day I attended both the first wikileak rally, and then my friend’s army ball, both held at Sydney’s Town Hall – allowing me to directly access the often polarised worldviews of Peace, and Security, and bringing me to what I will from here on refer to as the Left-Right Paradox.
Although separated by a few hours, I was one of the Lefties outside Town Hall by day, a “Hippy/Communist” as the army boys called us (appologising when I owned up); and lapping up the benefits of our capitalistic security-driven Conservative government (at my friend from the army’s end of year ball), by night.
The rally emphasised the cowardous and inexcusable way our politicians are handling Julian Assange: washing their hands of him and feeding him to the lions den, before proven guilty, is not something any citizen would hope from their country.
You would think they would learn from the case of David Hicks… what happened to being presumed innocent until proven guilty?
The rally also emphasised the citizen right to freedom of speech, freedom of media, and right to the truth.
You have probably gauged from other blog entries the value I place on the “truth” – so as you can imagine, my values were largely aligned with the rally’s speakers.
Later that day I gowned up and entered Town Hall, I also came to understand the other side.
“The information leaked put my friend’s lives at risk.” said my friend who served in Afghanistan earlier this year. “There are bigger questions that have to be asked.”
Gulp.
Let’s consider some of questions:
Should all political information be transparent?
Yes, I would like it to be.
What if this puts lives of Australian soldiers at risk?
Then no, it shouldn’t.
Do the public have a “right to know”?
YES, I think they do.
Do governments have a right to hold some information “confidential”?
Paradoxically YES, I think they do too.
Who should decide what truths should be told, and which should remain hidden?
I guess as a democracy this is the people’s decision, enacted through the government we elect to consider the facts and (hopefully) make decisions like this, hence controlling the information we see, for our own benefit.
While I think Wikileaks is a great resource for accessing the truth of the political, economic and social world we are a part of, in my opinion there are limits to what should be published. Namely nothing that puts the lives of fellow Australians at risk.
What if this puts lives of people from other countries at risk?
It is here we return to the Left-Right Paradox – the dicotomy that positions global peace against national security.
If I prioritise the lives of people from other countries, I can jeopardise the lives of people in my own country. In the political games we presently play, sending our troops to Iraq and Afghanistan and beyond, information is a weapon crucial to our winning or losing the game. So long as we are playing a global game of chess, can we really afford to tell our opponents our next moves?
There are two sides (or more) to every story, and this complicated debate is not going to end any time soon.
There are no easy answers, and there are an endless number of questions:
Are Australia, America, Britain actually democracies, or does the power of the intimate connections between media, politicians, and corporate elites nullify the ideal?
Can the Australian public TRUST their government?
Will the government one day point their finger at someone like me and yell “witch”, just for asking questions?
I hope Australia is a democracy with a government that can be trusted, who respect our questioning and always put the interests and freedoms of their citizens first.
In my opinion, government information should be as transparent as possible and it is nothing but bureaucratic bullshit if the public is held in the dark while institutions we don’t even know about pull the strings.
If I were to discuss this topic with a particularly wealthy and wise friend of mine, his response would be: “It’s all about maintaining The Pyramid.“
THE PYRAMID is a very illuminating idea – that all civilisations are based on a pyramid structure, with powerful rich at the top, and the poor workers at the bottom. Connected to the idea of maintaining The Pyramid, is the game of chess that those in power are playing with many other’s lives. So the question we must ask is:
Are we happy being pawns in a giant game of chess, or do we want to change the game, for example, from from chess to sex.
I don’t have the answers but I do have hope – hope that with collective creative ingenuity we humans can write some new rules, and start playing a game where both parties win.
In conclusion I wish to quote one of the army boys from the ball:
“Everyone just has to chill – chill out! Have a beer, talk about their issues, and then the solutions will appear.”
Cheers to that!
Thanks for listening to my rant… I’m sure everyone has an opinion and I’d love to hear your thoughts if you care to leave a comment below.
References
[1] http://antonyloewenstein.com/2010/12/13/sydney-rally-for-wikileaks-on-14-december/
Some links
This entry is continued from – http://www.julietbennett.com/2010/12/13/protests-and-balls-left-and-right/
My older entries on this topic that might be of interest:
Human Rights or a Collective Future – the Problem with Definitions
Am I a Leftist Idealist or Right Conservative, or BOTH?
A balanced article I quite liked – http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42140.html
A little video I shot on the day of Lee Rhiannon of the Greens (NSW Senator Elect).
Wikileaks video and site – http://213.251.145.96/video.html
Share this article
Protests and balls, left and right…
There are two sides to every story. We all know this, even if we choose to only see our side. Seeing the side of others takes empathy, a virtue that (unlike patience and many other virtues) I think I’m not half-bad at. Lucky so, given the nature of my recent social life.
On Friday night I updated my facebook status: Pro wikileaks rally outside town hall by day, dining inside town hall with army boys by night. Oh the irony!
The irony, in my mind, stemmed from the stark contrast in world-views between Peace and Security, between Left and Right. It’s a contrast that I find strange given both are ultimately (in my opinion) trying to achieve the same thing (improving the lives of themselves and the ones they love) – the difference being the way they believe this might be achieved.
The contrast was emphasised my a few of my friend’s friend’s friend (also an army boy) at a party the night before. In the span of 30-hours I went from left to right, back to left, back to right, finally returning to where I am now: relatively left with an appreciation for the right. Confused? That’s ok, so am I.
As I’ve mentioned in other posts, I have a few friends from the Australian army which with my Peace Studies tends to make for interesting conversations. But my friend’s friend’s friend was a little different.
So this story begins on Thursday night at what was supposed to be some quiet farewell drinks.
“Have you ever killed someone?” my friend’s friend’s friend asked, the look of horror from his killings still in his eyes. “Then you don’t know anything.”
I didn’t know what to say.
“You peace people, you f’ing hippies, you protest against us, you spit on us during Anzac day parades,” He continued. “You live in Paddington with your straight white teeth… you don’t have a clue.”
Do I turn and leave? Cry? Or try to see what’s beneath his resentment? I chose the latter option, although after too many drinks I may later done a little of the second, and eventually a friend enforced the first option. But that’s beside the point.
“Ok, I agree – I don’t have a clue. I would never spit on you, I assure you of that.” I began diplomatically. “I might be a bit left but as you said, I live in Paddington and I do very much appreciate my way of life – and I know the connection between this and what you do. I may not agree with violence but I enjoy the economic and physical benefits of it – from oil to our relationships with the US.”
I think he was at least a little suprised by my honesty. I asked what motivates him to fight, and why he joined.
“My family. Protecting the people I love. Protecting my country.” he replied. “And I have to admit, I was pretty stoked when I bought my first Beemer.”
The conversation continued to deeper territories.
“We generally try not to kill women and children but if it’s a choice between them or me, I have done it. And once you do it, you can’t take it back.” It was plain to me the saddness and resentment that was attached. “I’ve fought in East Timor, in Afghanistan, in many other places. After a while you enjoy it. Do you hear me? I have enjoyed killing people.”
I knew he was trying to intimidate me.
“I hear you. And I also know that if I were born in your body and your situation, I’d be doing the exact same thing.” I shrugged.
I don’t take killing lightly, and I definitely don’t condone it, but my empathy does allow me to understand. I can hardly begin to imagine the psychological processes within one’s mind in order to deal with taking another’s life.
In the psychological drama of killing people and then operating in a society where no one knows what that’s like and people ignorantly criticise the war you fight, of course you would need to find stories that justify it; attaching confident feelings to the actions; and transform oneself into the hero of the story.
Are today’s soldiers heroes?
In the minds of many of the people of their country, yes they are.
Are they murderers?
In the minds of the victim’s family, yes they are.
Are they necessary?
In the global game of chess our politicians are currently playing, yes they are.
Ultimately our politicians play the game that supports the way the majority want them to play it. And at the moment our objective is security: economic security and physical security.
Peace activists might protest against soldiers, showing their dismay for the victims of war and displaying their disapproval for the way our politicians are playing the game, but until the game changes, our politicians choices are limited.
“We pay you to protect us, and that’s what you do. That’s also why people like me are of more value than you think. When we’re not spitting at you during parades… ” I laughed, “And when we’re finished making our daisy chains, we are analyzing the causes of the war in the first place. We are looking for non-violent ways to secure the same things you are trying to secure.”
If I had been referring to the chess game I might have said: we are questioning the game and trying to see if there’s another way we can play it.
At the end of that evening, when my friend told me to go home to bed, the army boy turned to me, looked me in the eyes and said, “Thank you…” he shook his head, “this has been a really good conversation, thank you.”
It was a pretty hard core conversation but it had been worthwhile. It had opened windows for understanding, on both sides.
While the above rant is just the beginning of my 30-hour Left vs Right epic, this entry is getting long so I’ll tell the rest of the story tomorrow.
Share this article
Support Wikileaks Protest – Sydney Town Hall Tomorrow
I’ve never been much of a hands-on activist. While I support many causes, I tend to action my support in different ways. But tomorrow’s protest is different. Tomorrow is about making a stand for our fundamental freedoms, for democracy, free media and free speech. The more people who turn up the more this voice will be heard. So if you are in Sydney then come with me to the Support WikiLeaks Rally at 1pm at TOWN HALL tomorrow (Friday the 10th December). Otherwise sign the petition here – http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/?vl
I haven’t got time to put the WikiLeaks situation into my own words so below are words taken from a Ricken Patel – Avaaz.org email and Antony Loewenstein’s Press Release.
“Ever wonder why the media so rarely gives the full story of what happens behind the scenes? This is why – because when they do, governments can be vicious in their response. And when that happens, it’s up to the public to stand up for our democratic rights to a free press and freedom of expression. Never has there been a more vital time for us to do so.
Legal experts say WikiLeaks has likely broken no laws. Yet top US politicians have called it a terrorist group and commentators have urged assassination of its staff. The organization has come under massive government and corporate attack, but WikiLeaks is only publishing information provided by a whistleblower. And it has partnered with the world’s leading newspapers (NYT, Guardian, Spiegel etc) to carefully vet the information it publishes.
The US government is currently pursuing all legal avenues to stop WikiLeaks from publishing more cables, but the laws of democracies protect freedom of the press. The US and other governments may not like the laws that protect our freedom of expression, but that’s exactly why it’s so important that we have them, and why only a democratic process can change them.
Reasonable people can disagree on whether WikiLeaks and the leading newspapers it’s partnered with are releasing more information than the public should see. Whether the releases undermine diplomatic confidentiality and whether that’s a good thing. Whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has the personal character of a hero or a villain. BUT none of this justifies a vicious campaign of intimidation to silence a legal media outlet by governments and corporations.
The massive extra-judicial intimidation of WikiLeaks is an attack on democracy. We urgently need a public outcry for freedom of the press and expression.” [1]
Sign the petition to stop the crackdown:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/?vl
Forward this message to everyone — let’s get to 1 million voices!”
If you are in Sydney then show your support at the “Support WikiLeaks Rally” – TOMORROW (Friday the 10th December) at 1pm at TOWN HALL:
“MEDIA RELEASE — MEDIA RELEASE — MEDIA RELEASE — Support Wikileaks rally called
Supporters of the website Wikileaks will mobilise on Friday (10/12/10) to protest against the backlash it has faced for its release of more than 250,000 US government cables.
The protest will hear from independent journalist Antony Loewenstein, award-winning author of My Israel Question. Pirate Party spokesperson Simon Frew will also speak. Other speakers will be announced soon.
The rally date coincides with International Human Rights Day. Rally organisers say the Australian government has failed to uphold the human rights of Wikileaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange.
“The Australian government should be ashamed for its attacks on Wikileaks, which has been charged with no crime”, spokesperson Simon Butler said.
“Australia should not join the campaign to censor Wikileaks. Wikileaks has released evidence of government lies and duplicity — information that, as citizens, we have a right to know.
“We want the Gillard government to make sure Julian Assange has the same basic rights as every other Australian citizen. Threats have been made against Assange’s life, the Australian government has a duty to protect him, not threaten him.”
Butler said community support for Wikileaks was very high. “We expect a good turnout to the rally. There is a great deal of anger at what’s happening. The bid to silence Wikileaks threatens the rights of everyone.” [2]
The email from Ricken Patel – Avaaz.org includes these SOURCES:
Law experts say WikiLeaks in the clear (ABC)
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3086781.htm
WikiLeaks are a bunch of terrorists, says leading U.S. congressman (Mail Online)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333879/WikiLeaks-terrorists-says-leading-US-congressman-Peter-King.html
Cyber guerrillas can help US (Financial Times)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d3dd7c40-ff15-11df-956b-00144feab49a.html#axzz17QvQ4Ht5
Amazon drops WikiLeaks under political pressure (Yahoo)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101201/tc_afp/usdiplomacyinternetwikileakscongressamazon
“WikiLeaks avenged by hacktivists” (PC World):
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/212701/operation_payback_wikileaks_avenged_by_hacktivists.html
US Gov shows true control over Internet with WikiLeaks containment (Tippett.org)
http://www.tippett.org/2010/12/us-gov-shows-true-control-over-internet-with-wikileaks-containment/
US embassy cables culprit should be executed, says Mike Huckabee (The Guardian)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/us-embassy-cables-executed-mike-huckabee
WikiLeaks ditched by MasterCard, Visa. Who’s next? (The Christian Science Monitor)
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2010/1207/WikiLeaks-ditched-by-MasterCard-Visa.-Who-s-next
Assange’s Interpol Warrant Is for Having Sex Without a Condom (The Slatest)
http://slatest.slate.com/id/2276690/
My sources:
[1]
Avaaz.org is a 6.4-million-person global campaign network that works to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people shape global decision-making. (“Avaaz” means “voice” or “song” in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 13 countries on 4 continents and operates in 14 languages. To contact Avaaz, go to www.avaaz.org/en/contact.
[2]
Antony Loewenstein is a Sydney-based independent freelance journalist, author, documentarian, photographer and blogger.
http://antonyloewenstein.com/2010/12/07/wikileaks-support-protest-in-sydney-on-friday
The rally will take place at Sydney Town Hall @ 1pm, Friday December 10.
Rally information: Kylie Gilbert 0451 827 693
Media contact: Simon Butler 0421 231 011
Share this article
Yoga – always a good decision
Tonight I had a decision to make: dinner with mum, PeaceBeliever Tribute to John Lennon at Oxford Arts Factory, bed (I was up late blogging last night), try to keep awake and study, or go to a yoga class. My body craved the hot room, long stretches, mental relaxation of yoga – but it would be at the cost of all the other options, and the bother of driving and parking. All of this I could be avoided if I just sit on my ass and don’t go. But I did. And I was reminded (once again) that yoga is always a good decision.
I don’t know how I let myself forget – how weeks go by with my prioritising social events or even whatever TV series I’m working through at the time – instead of making it to class.
This class – at Body Mind Life, in Surry Hills – is particularly great. To make things even better, tonight this amazing (and perfect bodied, dreadlocked) yoga dude brought a guitar and he and the female instructor sang some chants.
It is quite an incredible feeling to be in a room full of around 50 people humming “om” together (the vibration of the universe) and singing about “shanti” (which means peace). So I might not have made the Lennon Peace Tribute but I did I return home feeling once again “at peace”.
I had forgotten how great that feeling is.
To be honest I had been starting to wonder if “Peace” was an outdated word – with all the baggage that seems to be attached to it. Peace seemed to bring to mind fairly boring images of nothingness while and Conflict brought to mind images of adventure and excitement. The definition of Peace (or “Positive Peace” to be more exact) in Peace and Conflict Studies is a Peace that values Conflict but not at the expense of Violence or Injustice. So… in the pursuit of Peace by this definition, I was starting to think that maybe we needed a more exciting new term.
After tonight I see Peace differently.
Tonight I am reminded that while we need Conflict to have Peace, we also need Peace to have Conflict. We need BOTH. While Conflict can be great, it does need some moments of Peace to balance it out.
Tonight I feel calm but energised, alive without-a-worry-in-the-world. Feeling at peace with oneself is a very good feeling. So if your life is as fast-changing and competitive as mine then I recommend that an hour or two of pure nothingness (which is not the same as watching a tv show) is always a good decision.
Share this article
Humanity: are we an empathic civilisation???
Something many of us probably do not know is that connected to our drive to survive, is an empathic disposition driving the evolution of “civilisation”. Humans have a long history of empathy that unfortunately our history books tend to forget about. The book The Empathic Civilisation – The Race to Global Consciousness in a World in Crisis, by Jeremy Rifkin, tells another story.
As a commenter on Peace: How Do We Find It? said, “so now all we need to change, is the minds of the entire human population.” That sounds darn right impossible, doesn’t it. It doesn’t sound very promising, nor ethical, BUT if humans are empathic at their core then maybe we don’t have to change people minds – maybe we just have to REMEMBER a part of ourselves we often forget.
Rifkin writes about the change in people’s minds that led to the spread of Christianity around 1500 years ago.
“Cast adrift from their tribal bonds and thrown together with people of different cultures form around the empire, large numbers of individuals suddenly found themselves alone in dense urban environments and without a sense of identity… what was missing was a powerful new narrative that could put every single individual at the center of a compelling cosmic story of creation, tribulation, judgement, and redemption, and, by doing so, recast the very meaning of human existence… it would be a young sect calling itself Christians that would take Rome and the empire by storm with their story.” [1]
This video is not a replacement but it is a brilliant summary of the book:
Oh and this interview with the Rifkin is pretty cool too:
It seems to me that while conflict and competition play important (and positive) roles in life processes, if we have an empathic disposition then conflicts don’t need to have violent and destructive consequences.
Could small shift in the way we frame our story? Could books and clips such as this one contain the butterfly effect strong enough to realise our empathy and better the world for each other and future generations?
Or will it be a new cosmic narrative that addresses our own distorted sense of identity?
Rifkin describes three Industrial Revolutions, each based on a developments in energy/communications technologies:
1. coal/print
2. oil/radio-television
3. (maybe) the Internet/alternative energy
In order to avoid “planetary collapse” in the face of “a rapidly accelerating juggernaut” of climate change and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, (or, if you’re a climate change skeptic, then just exchange those two words for human population which is undeniably ridiculous and out of control) a revolution is necessary.
If this third revolution happens, Ruskin writes that it ‘will be marked by a “distributed” model of energy production (and use) that will rely on the new assumption that human nature is not inherently selfish, but rather that people ‘want to collaborate with others, often freely, for the sheer joy of contributing to the common good.‘[2]
How’s your empathic disposition as we come up to Christmas?
Do you think such a revolution is possible?
I do, but that might be summer and the fact that I just got my first scooter, bringing back my pre-India incurable optimism…
References
[1] The Empathic Civilization - The Race to Global Consciousness in a World in Crisis, by Jeremy Rifkin.
[2] As summed in a review in ONE COUNTRY, Bahai Internationa Community New York, Ed. Brad Pokorny.