There's something I've been hearing a lot of lately, and that thing is racism. A recent study by York University in Canada found that many people (who, I assume, would never think of themselves as racist people) failed to call an actor out on a variety of racial slurs, including the term 'clumsy nigger', and were in fact more inclined to pick that person as a partner when asked to choose (about 63% of the participants picked the racist actor). I am ashamed to admit that, as an active collectivite, I failed to call people out on blatant racism in the past week. I was thinking about it last night, and this morning, and I realised that we (well, at least me) encounter so much racism on a daily basis, and fail to act, purely because it's not directed at us, because it's easier to let a sleeping dog lie.
Why are people in New Zealand (a supposedly inclusive society) and all over the world, racist? I feel like, because we as a country, didn't support things like slavery (although it did happen), we feel free to point at countries like the States and say that they're the country to be looked at if you want to see racism. Sure, we have done better than some countries (like Australia, where much of the Aboriginal population lives out in shanty towns, marginalised still by the rest of the population), at trying to repair the havoc colonization wreaked. But I still hear racist stereotypes all the time - PI's favourite restaurant is KFC, all Maori people are on the DPB etc.
Personally, I believe that a large part of the blame is on separatism. Not that I begrudge anyone of maintaining their own, separate cultural identity, but surely the government allocating more money to schools with Maori and Pacific students, on the assumption that they're poorer or dumber than their white or yellow counterparts. Labelling people as this and that - black, white, red, yellow, brown; Maori, European (effing European! you were born in New Zealand for chrissakes! You're Australasian! Jeez), African, Scandinavian etc. It encourages stereotypes, and a stereotype, being an impression of a group based on a small cross-section, is the underlying root of racism.
The definition of racism, according to wikipedia (that great and holy bastion of knowledge) "is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." Essentially, that we are different from each other because of our race. This idea is bullshit, and yet perpetuated by our government and media. When scientific studies of health and education are published in New Zealand, they always separate NZers into categories (seriously. Check for this next time), saying things like, Maori and Pacific Islanders are more sensitive to diabetes, that people of Asian descent are smarter. Yes, there are differences, but they are primarily cultural, and no more significant than the differences in educational achievement between the kids that study for two hours every night, and the kids who go to Macca's instead (mmmm...mcdonalds....). And this racism is flying under the radar, subconsciously reassuring (primarily) white New Zealanders that it's okay to discriminate.
(Just as a side-note, I also feel that the anti-PC movement is to blame. Just because it's not politically correct be racist, doesn't mean that you should discriminate against someone to support the identity you're attempting to create for yourself, as someone who takes no bullshit. News flash, racism is bullshit.)
What can you do about it? Short of writing to the government and research bodies of New Zealand, and asking them to stop differentiating, and thus discriminating (, start by calling people out on their racism (and homophobia. And their anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish and anti-American feelings). When your father or auntie or cousin curses 'those bloody Asian drivers', tell them off. Tell them that they're racist (something that they probably haven't considered, and would be horrified to think of), and that you're not cool with it, and that they're hurting people every time they make a prejudiced remark. Stop stereotyping, even if it's just a 'dumb blonde', and maybe get people to consider that what they perceive as racial differences may actually be cultural ones, and thus not apply to everyone. Race is just a skin colour. Nothing more.
Showing posts with label romana. Show all posts
Showing posts with label romana. Show all posts
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Monday, November 24, 2008
Romana's take on the global economy sucking
(I have never taken economics. I have struggled to get this far. If I got anything wrong, please tell me, so that I can either correct this post, or delete it before I die of shame)
So, the economy sucks, huh? As far as I can tell, this a result of those wheeler dealers on wall street, and two, large, U.S. government backed corporations by the names of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Both overseen by Congress, Fannie Mae underwrote mortgages on "affordable homes". This was intended to make home loans more accessible for lower-income Americans. Freddie Mac then sold them on to the private sector, as assets. Fannie and Freddie guaranteed most of the mortgages in the U.S.A, and had combined assets of almost $5 trillion. The government backing meant that they were able to take on massive larger amounts of debt than other companies, and in return for this, they were supposed to finance more affordable mortgages.
Around 1999, Fannie Mae started underwriting bad loans - to people without high enough incomes, or without the sufficient capital to normally get a loan. These bad loans were on sold to private companies, who assumed that, as Fannie and Freddie were government affiliated, their debt securities were back by the U.S. treasury. Instead, brokers were just making massive proftis by onselling these loans.The onselling of these loans created massive profits for brokers and the like. Private companies began compiling massive numbers of these loans (assuming that they came with little risk) and putting them in a huge pile, if you like, and just sat there, waitng, as themortgage checks came rolling in each month. As the housing bubble started to collapse, and properties lost their value, mortgage owners began defaulting on their payments. Private Companies, who had taken on massive amounts of debt, began to fail. The U.S. Government decided to bail Fannie and Freddie(and Bear Sterans, and A.I.G.) out, in an attempt to stop the economy fully melting. the companies that didn't get bailed out, who now had massive amounts of debt on their hands, began to fail.
So what? I don't work for one of those failing companies, like the Lehman brothers. heck, I don't even live in the same country. The failing of these corporations is causing a rippling effect. Financial firms are going to be less quick to lend money, and growth of economies everwhere will slow down. Jan Hatzius of Goldman Sachs, predicts that the U.S. economy's G.D.P. will be down 2% in '08 and '09. Consumers, unable to access credit, and fearful of the loomng crisis, are stopping their spending. Retailers and manufacturers are starting to fail - the Big # of car manufacturing, Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler recently flew from Detroit to Washington to beg for a government handout. Jobs will be lost. More mortgage payments will fail to be payed. And people bought these mortgages all over the world - Hungary, Singapore, Brazil. In New Zealand, we're mostly going to be okay, because our banks aren't investment ones, who bought these mortgages - our debt isn't likely to be called in. But the Global economy will slow, and things like exporting, and tourism, some of our biggest earners, will slow. People will lose their jobs, even here, and nobody seems to have come up with the silver bullet that will fix, or at least slow, the meltdown.
(I was going to put a bit of opinion here, but I can't be bothered. Form your own opininon, and tell me in the commets. Am off to study now. Man, this was an ace way to procrastinate.)
So, the economy sucks, huh? As far as I can tell, this a result of those wheeler dealers on wall street, and two, large, U.S. government backed corporations by the names of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Both overseen by Congress, Fannie Mae underwrote mortgages on "affordable homes". This was intended to make home loans more accessible for lower-income Americans. Freddie Mac then sold them on to the private sector, as assets. Fannie and Freddie guaranteed most of the mortgages in the U.S.A, and had combined assets of almost $5 trillion. The government backing meant that they were able to take on massive larger amounts of debt than other companies, and in return for this, they were supposed to finance more affordable mortgages.
Around 1999, Fannie Mae started underwriting bad loans - to people without high enough incomes, or without the sufficient capital to normally get a loan. These bad loans were on sold to private companies, who assumed that, as Fannie and Freddie were government affiliated, their debt securities were back by the U.S. treasury. Instead, brokers were just making massive proftis by onselling these loans.The onselling of these loans created massive profits for brokers and the like. Private companies began compiling massive numbers of these loans (assuming that they came with little risk) and putting them in a huge pile, if you like, and just sat there, waitng, as themortgage checks came rolling in each month. As the housing bubble started to collapse, and properties lost their value, mortgage owners began defaulting on their payments. Private Companies, who had taken on massive amounts of debt, began to fail. The U.S. Government decided to bail Fannie and Freddie(and Bear Sterans, and A.I.G.) out, in an attempt to stop the economy fully melting. the companies that didn't get bailed out, who now had massive amounts of debt on their hands, began to fail.
So what? I don't work for one of those failing companies, like the Lehman brothers. heck, I don't even live in the same country. The failing of these corporations is causing a rippling effect. Financial firms are going to be less quick to lend money, and growth of economies everwhere will slow down. Jan Hatzius of Goldman Sachs, predicts that the U.S. economy's G.D.P. will be down 2% in '08 and '09. Consumers, unable to access credit, and fearful of the loomng crisis, are stopping their spending. Retailers and manufacturers are starting to fail - the Big # of car manufacturing, Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler recently flew from Detroit to Washington to beg for a government handout. Jobs will be lost. More mortgage payments will fail to be payed. And people bought these mortgages all over the world - Hungary, Singapore, Brazil. In New Zealand, we're mostly going to be okay, because our banks aren't investment ones, who bought these mortgages - our debt isn't likely to be called in. But the Global economy will slow, and things like exporting, and tourism, some of our biggest earners, will slow. People will lose their jobs, even here, and nobody seems to have come up with the silver bullet that will fix, or at least slow, the meltdown.
(I was going to put a bit of opinion here, but I can't be bothered. Form your own opininon, and tell me in the commets. Am off to study now. Man, this was an ace way to procrastinate.)
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Charity Sucks
(i'm sorry for offending anyone with this)
Okay, charity as a concept doesn't suck - there's absolutely nothing wrong with helping others wherever and whenever you can. But there is a problem with attitudes, in New Zealand, and in other MDC's, towards charity and how to best deal with the multitude of problems faced by the people and governments struggling in LDC's.
Charity organisations run advertising in New Zealand. Advertising, for the most part, is good - it helps make people aware that there are issues affecting people around the world, something that the AC tries hard to do. What's not so good is the way they try to solicit donations, by broadcasting images of starving children, guilting you into donating money. While donating money (as opposed to not donating money), is a good thng, it over-simplifies poverty. It creates the impression that by thowing money at these charities, the children won't be starving, and you can resume your life, guilt-free. The problems are much more complicted than that, and run a lot deeper. Throwing money at it, just as throwing a key at a door without bothering to find the lock, isn't helpful. By sponsoring a starving child, you help that child, yes, but behind that child are millions more, starving and sick, and you just can't sponsor them all.
Not only are traditional forms of charity ineffective, but many are counter-poductive, and harmful. Many western aid agencies promote traditional forms of farming, as attitudes in our society become more environmentally conscious, and supportive of 'organic food'. They tend to be anti-technology, instead promoting the same methods of farming present in the region hundreds of years ago. We can afford to support organic food choices in MDC's - we have an abundance of food and money. But when aid agencies, and green activists (who often support organic farming as a way to reduce carbon emissions, and sell the carbon credits to people in the west) push these ideals (which are just that -ideals) on the peope they're trying to help, they hinder the progress of that society. Without the latest technology - plants that are resistant to disease, salt and flooding- the impoverished farming communities of the world, in plces like the Democratic Republic of Congo, will be left further behind. Their farms will barely, if even at all, keep them above the povery line, creating problems that didn't even need to be there in the first place. Furthermore, this holding back of technology by aid groups mens crops fail, and land is used inefficiently. we're in the middle of a food shortage - using the latst food technology in these areas would certainly help alleviate the strain and the cost caused by food. These 'aid' agencies supporting traditional farming are holding impoverished nations back, contributing to the problems they, and the rest of the world face.
There are many ways peope in MDC's can help alleviate the strain felt by those elsewhere. pressuring governments to set up trade policies that are non-exploitative, and thoughtful, instead of capitalist, would be a nice step. Other legislative measures, such as regional pressure (such as the African Union on Zimbabwe, or if the EU encouraged prospective member states t solve issues, rather than hide them) on horrible governments would also be beneficial to the welfare of the world's poor. 'Most of the poverty and misery in the world is due to bad government...' (George Soros). By encouraging governments to make policies that help rather than hinder, much poverty could be solved, and much pain on both sides) alleviated. The problems created by bad policies cnnot be solved through charities, and just throwing money at people through them. An actual change needs to be made globally to the way we view poverty, and choose to combat it, or the people unlucky enough to be born in an impoverished nation will be left behind the rest of us, with no hope of escape or improvement.
-Romana
Okay, charity as a concept doesn't suck - there's absolutely nothing wrong with helping others wherever and whenever you can. But there is a problem with attitudes, in New Zealand, and in other MDC's, towards charity and how to best deal with the multitude of problems faced by the people and governments struggling in LDC's.
Charity organisations run advertising in New Zealand. Advertising, for the most part, is good - it helps make people aware that there are issues affecting people around the world, something that the AC tries hard to do. What's not so good is the way they try to solicit donations, by broadcasting images of starving children, guilting you into donating money. While donating money (as opposed to not donating money), is a good thng, it over-simplifies poverty. It creates the impression that by thowing money at these charities, the children won't be starving, and you can resume your life, guilt-free. The problems are much more complicted than that, and run a lot deeper. Throwing money at it, just as throwing a key at a door without bothering to find the lock, isn't helpful. By sponsoring a starving child, you help that child, yes, but behind that child are millions more, starving and sick, and you just can't sponsor them all.
Not only are traditional forms of charity ineffective, but many are counter-poductive, and harmful. Many western aid agencies promote traditional forms of farming, as attitudes in our society become more environmentally conscious, and supportive of 'organic food'. They tend to be anti-technology, instead promoting the same methods of farming present in the region hundreds of years ago. We can afford to support organic food choices in MDC's - we have an abundance of food and money. But when aid agencies, and green activists (who often support organic farming as a way to reduce carbon emissions, and sell the carbon credits to people in the west) push these ideals (which are just that -ideals) on the peope they're trying to help, they hinder the progress of that society. Without the latest technology - plants that are resistant to disease, salt and flooding- the impoverished farming communities of the world, in plces like the Democratic Republic of Congo, will be left further behind. Their farms will barely, if even at all, keep them above the povery line, creating problems that didn't even need to be there in the first place. Furthermore, this holding back of technology by aid groups mens crops fail, and land is used inefficiently. we're in the middle of a food shortage - using the latst food technology in these areas would certainly help alleviate the strain and the cost caused by food. These 'aid' agencies supporting traditional farming are holding impoverished nations back, contributing to the problems they, and the rest of the world face.
There are many ways peope in MDC's can help alleviate the strain felt by those elsewhere. pressuring governments to set up trade policies that are non-exploitative, and thoughtful, instead of capitalist, would be a nice step. Other legislative measures, such as regional pressure (such as the African Union on Zimbabwe, or if the EU encouraged prospective member states t solve issues, rather than hide them) on horrible governments would also be beneficial to the welfare of the world's poor. 'Most of the poverty and misery in the world is due to bad government...' (George Soros). By encouraging governments to make policies that help rather than hinder, much poverty could be solved, and much pain on both sides) alleviated. The problems created by bad policies cnnot be solved through charities, and just throwing money at people through them. An actual change needs to be made globally to the way we view poverty, and choose to combat it, or the people unlucky enough to be born in an impoverished nation will be left behind the rest of us, with no hope of escape or improvement.
-Romana
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
