I HAVE SOME THOUGHS AND THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE TO PUT THEM MAYBE WE SHOULD REVIVE THE ACTIVE COLLECTIVE BLOG

Okay. i have some thoughts to share, even if the AC blog is, for all intents and purposes, as dead as Britney Spears' acting career (yes?) I, for one, would be brought immeasurable joy by seeing a new active collective blog post, even if I only happened to come across it months later. So you better be partying down right now.

Anyway. My topic. What I'm writing about? um. first, a confession. Sometimes, when we used to discuss issues in the AC, I simply didn't care; i enjoyed taking sides and winning arguments and showing everyone i had clever, informed opinions, but for the most part, i was rarely riled up enough (and far too lazy) to even consider doing something about it. I doubt this is very surprising to you, yet, i think this is one of the most pervasive issues within the (now defunct? oh no, i don't know if I can still talk about the AC as a current, functioning body or whether this should be in past tense>? say it isn't so!) active collective, and, indeed, with how we go about (went about!!??!!) our primary function - to raise awareness and concern for all sorts of political, economic and social issues globally. We (though i would like to exclude a few notable people from this generalisation - you know who you are- and am in no way bagging the active collective) quite simply didn't always care enough about the people and issues we were talking about, and as a result, found that our effectiveness was inhibited.

Right now, you might not be agreeing with me (Heck, I don't even know if i;m agreeing with me - i counted on figuring this out as i went along), but bear with me, please. i think i have a point to make that you may agree with. So so far we have established that I don't care, some of you might not care, and I'm willing to bet a whole lot more people out in the wider world do not care. Why? Now this isn;t amazing and it isn;t revolutionary and this too will not suprise you, btu the point of this post is too point out, to me at least, the most obvious fundamental flaw int he way we (I) approach the world. We (I) do not care because I have zero understanding, zero empathy, zero knowledge fo people outside of my situation. I'm not saying that we all have to walk a google miles in someone elses shoes; indeed, the only shoes you can walk in without squashing your toes and eventually falling over in a ridiculously comic way are your own. What I'm saying is that if we have to find a way to care so that we can do something, and if the way you care about someone is you get to know them, then we all need to do a heck of a lot more getting to know people in slippers and Geta* and those without shoes at all, as opposed to just the worlds of people in roman sandals and skate shoes. We need to know about these people to care about them - I for instance, would be much more concerned about the petrol station next to lily's house blowing up (actually in hindsight i think i would have a really proper freakout concern for this, how far do petrol station explosions reach? enough that if lily's family was at home they would be hurt? lily, i think it's just safer for you to never return home until that home is not situated, like, right next to an inflammable service station of death), or even the petrol station near, say, chris nelson's house, someone i only really tangentially know, than the numerous explosions going on with the express intent to hurt many people all over the world every day. As horrible as this is(and hopefully some other people to decrease how much of a bad perosn I am) because I don't have any idea who those people are, I feel close to zero responsibility to care, which is not right at all because we are a global, connected community - as john donne said, no man (or woman) is an island.

(*oh this has led me on a world of shoe adventure. did you know, for instance that the Patten was this like, shoe add-on in the middle ages that was like, a kind of stilt/mud version of the snowshoe? the more you know...)

But I;ve been talking about knowledge and for most of you, you have knowledge. you support fair trade because otherwise people get screwed over and you know, at least, that lots and lots of things in the worlds suck, so then why is hasn't this blog post ended and why atre you still reaifng me (okay, i have to say that i have been going round in circles because I forgot my point and it is 3 int he morning shit 3 in the morning I am going to collect myself and sail on tjhrough). I think the problem is though, that we think we know heaps because we know more than say, some of our classmates, when the reality is, we don;t know nearly enough at all. and I'm not saying you have to know everything and everyone and care for everyone because that is impossible btu what i am trying to say is that we need to know more people and care about more people and communities and be more aware of what life is like in for people with all different kinds of shoes. we need to find ways of caring and in part this is what i realised things liek the world vision ads (which i have "opinions" on) are trying to do - make people feel smethign, and then connect them with someone else in some part of the world entirely remote from their understanding but the problem with world vision is that that is all it encourages people to do, effectively letting everybody well off enough to to assuage their guilt while expanding their base of knowledge of other people and situations and perspectives very little.

and that is what this is essentially about - perspective. how we view others and ourselves in relationship to those others and whether we view ourselves in relation to them at all. Chimamanda Adichie gave this talk



where she encouraged people to look beyond the "single story" that they were being told about, mainly people other than them. She argues, basically, that telling a single story, even for altruistic purposes, such as charity to help a family because they are poor, or of all of the sucky things happening all over Africa in an effort to get people to help and care reduces them to that single element, eliminating your ability to see them as another person with a multi-faceted life just like yours or mines and instead as only that story told of them. It is stereotyping in its worst form, and the reason it is in this blog post at all is because the single story effect affects (i hope i got those right) a persons ability to care. Repeatedly being shown images of malnourished, unidentifiable African children, instead of inducing concern and horror eventually dehumanises those being shown, and desensitises those viewing the images and everyone loses. you are nto going to care or help someone you have no empathy for and you can't gain empathy until you see people who need help as being more than that and oh god, i am forgetting my point, and to do that, we have to look beyond the single story.

I think that needs to be the mission of each and every one of us. Not every person ont he continent of Africa is poor, illiterate, dying of aids and starving; not everyone in mexico is desperately trying to get into the USA (and actually, i just saw a marcel theroux documentary? on americans who move to Mexico to gain subsidised healthcare) and not every teenager is glued to their phone and ignorant of world happenings. We have to care, we have to know, we have to know about more than one side of the story. When Elsie refused to support the guy who lost out to ahmadinejad in the iranian elections, while i believe she was partly just trying to be contrary, she was also acknowledging that it wasn't a black and white issue - there were people who liked ahmadinejad and people who weren't about to protest and while they were perhaps not the people who needed sticking up for, they were people too? um. this was going somewhere. and we are lucky that we live in an age where we can look at twitter feeds in an entirely different language from an entirely different part of the world because no person is ever an island except sometimes it seems we are doing our darnedest for never leave our own little archipelago oh god, what point have I made? we need to care, we need to knowledge to care, we need to understand that our current knowledge of people and situations is not even close to being adequate, because we are all being fed stories from one perspective, and most of all, we can do something about it. yes. read more, talk more, research some for an ac blog post debunking conventional perspectives on people and situations, and most of all, figure out how to utilise things like the internet to do these things, to gain a greater understanding of the world because right now in time, we are connected like never before. what we choose to do with this power, is up to you.

i hope that all made sense. i'[m not quite sure idf it does in my brain so you might need to prepare for some heavy editing of this post. um. dont judge me for a post that instead of being groundbreaking rested the obvious. i restated it because it needs to eb restated. too often we dont take the time to think beyond the representationwe are given oh god

Iran Update

Source: Christiane Amanpour's facebook page

Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri of Iran has posted a statement on his website (which I'm not going to link to because it's in FARSI, not English. there's a translated version of the letter here though.) condemning the rigging of the elections. For those of you not in the know, the grand Ayatollah is like, one of the top clerics of Islam in Iran. There are, like, 20 Grand Ayatollah's in the world, and they're basically like super-priests.In Iran, his views and opinions have a lot of sway over the people. Montazeri was slated to take over from the Supreme Ayatollah Khomeini, who was basically insane (and insanely powerful; he was the guy who ordered the fatwa on Salman Rushdie), but Montazeri is way cool, supporting things like civil and womens rights, so they didn't give him the job. Anyway, his Wikipedia page if you need to know more, is here, (and his official website, if you can read Farsi) but I'm going to post the letter below anyway to make your life easier.

In the name of God

People of Iran

These last days, we have witnessed the lively efforts of you, brothers and sisters, old and young alike, from every social category, for the 10th presidential elections.

Our youth, hoping to see their rightful will fulfilled, came on the scene and waited patiently. This was the greatest occasion for the government’s officials to bond with their people.

However, unfortunately, they used it in the worst way possible. Declaring results that no one in their right mind can believe, and despite all the evidence of crafted results, and contrary to the people’s protestations, in front of the eyes of the same nation who carried the weight of a revolution and 8 years of war, in front of the eyes of local and foreign reporters, attacked the children of the people with astonishing violence. And now they are attempting a purge, arresting intellectuals, political opponents and Scientists.

Now, based on my religious duties, I will remind you:

1- A legitimate state must respect all points of view. It may not oppress critical views. I fear that this will lead to the loss of people’s faith in Islam.

2- Given the current circumstances, I expect the government to take all measures to restore people’s confidence. Otherwise, as I have already said, a government not respecting the people’s vote has no religious or political legitimacy.

3- I invite everyone, especially the youth, to continue reclaiming their dues calmly, and not to allow those who want to associate this movement with chaos succeed.

4- I ask the police and army personnel not to “sell their religion”, and be aware that receiving orders will not excuse them before God. Recognize the protesting youth as your children. Today, censorship and cutting telecommunication lines can not hide the truth.

I pray for the greatness of the Iranian people.

Also, this was the hundreth post to the AC blog

Where democracy fails.

Now don't get me wrong; having democratic systems of government, as opposed to power by force, is the only way to guarantee that governments are accountable to their people. Countries that aren't democratic have far higher rates of human rights abuses, because, really, they don't owe their citizens anything. Democracy, overall, is the best system we've got. But sometimes you just have to over-rule the will of the people.

Sometimes democracy is bad. People aren't always nice. Occasionally, we promote things solely to benefit ourselves, ignoring the detrimental effect that it has on others. Take, for example,lower taxes for the rich, stealing, slavery. As Darwin kind of said, it's survival of the fittest, a dog eat dog world out there. And the will of the majority is often to harm the minority.

And that is exactly what democracy promotes; instead of a select few imposing their will on everyone, instead, sheer numbers create ruling classes. When you say the will of the people is always right, someone has to ask back, which people? Governments are only accountable to slightly over half of their people. National has a fair idea of who voted for them, and it certainly wasn't those on welfare; so why help them?

Recently in the U.S.A, teh California Supreme court refused to nullify Proposition 8, because it believed its role was to interpret, not alter the constitution. But if not them, who? When the human rights of a minority are being violated, it is not the masses who will stand up for them, so those with authority must. The American people didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation
, a man ignoring the will of the people who elected him, Abraham Lincoln did. Was he right? Heck yes! So why aren't more people willing to stand up, against popular opinion, for human rights?

(Quick sidebar, click here for Rob Thomas' fantastic piece on why we should support gay marriage, especially over civil unions, which is what NZ (and most other nations) have currently)

democracy is not always the bastion of civilisation. People who aren't willing to think deeper, or to see the effects of decisions beyond their own backyards, are those who the people in charge are often kowtowing to. President Obama, who overwhelmingly won the US presidential election because he promised change has been forced to reneg on many of his campaign promises (for example, the closure of prisoner dentention camp Guantanamo Bay), because his Seante wont fund him. Why wont his Senate fund him? Because he wants to do what is right, but not politically popular; people are suddenly willing to trash their values in favour of peice of mind, because the reality of having dangerous prisoners that close is now too much for them. And that's what this boils down to; for a truly democratic society, are we willing to sacrifice doing what we know is right?

Homophobia much?

So, once again, I have no point to make, except maybe that some people in this world are ignorant, disgusting bigots. Here, I'll save the outrage for you.






Pretty much, a group in Utah called 'America Forever' took out a full page ad in the Salt Lake Tribune saying, well, you can see for yourself. There's a really great article about it, and the reaction here. What's more, is that this comes on the back of the Governor of Utah declaring his support for Civil Unions, and attempts to overturn the ban of them in the State's constitution.


Word to your mother, hate speech is way uncool.

It's coz we aint black

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.

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.)

Recession

So, the global economy is going to shit. I'll think I'll just let Hank explain.

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