Overall Class Comments - November 26th, 2006

To come into a class about Human and Civil Rights being a Commerce student was a decision that definitely took me out of my comfort zone in terms of topics that I knew, concepts that I had previously studied, and the attitudes and thought process of those persons who I sat next to day in and day out in class.

Furthermore, to come into a class which has a focus on Latin America (where my exposure to Latin America to be in kind, is severely limited), where a significant portion of the class has some background in Latin America History or some background in International Relations, just made the task that much more difficult and complicated.

Nonetheless, those risks I understood and expected when I made the decision to enroll in the class. I am continually disappointed in my faculty for a number of reasons; however, one of those reasons is that the student body continues to be entirely focused on their marks/grades in their courses. Here we are, at a great place of learning where so many different courses, professors, students, and minds are present in order to further our understanding of the human body, the history of Prussia, etc. and continually my classmates take courses because they can achieve an easy A+ in the course so that their GPA will not be negatively affected. While there may be a problem in the system that they will be looked down upon because they had a lower GPA than someone else, the students must bear some blame as refused to stand up to the system which obviously is flawed where the person who takes the easy route and learns less is rewarded rather than the person who attempts to learn. Furthermore, in my experiences, when an employer sees that you have taken something completely different than a commerce course it indicates that there is some mental depth to the person making the candidate more intriguing.

I do not say that I took this course in an attempt to make myself appear deeper than any other person in the school in order to help myself attain the big job; however, I took this course because it sounded interesting and challenging to me and my background and interests.

(hey the power just went out at my place and I am now writing the blog in the dark – isn’t the invention of the battery useful – however this is a reminder of how nice it is to have electricity easily available which isn’t the case in much of the world)

Throughout the course, my mind has been attempting to find a linear thought process to take from the course in terms of something that could be the basis of a thesis if I was to choose to write one, so here it is.

People or groups of people come together in an attempt to create more stability in their lives than the stability which is afforded by the natural way of the world which is “survival of the fittest” as demonstrated by nature and the actions of the animals, plants, etc. These people bond together into what is called a “Society”.

In exchange for the thought of an easier life or safer existence, persons give up the independence of their being to the community in an attempt to provide a better life for all involved.

This “society”, in order to function and to prevent a return to the ways of anarchy, developed a way to address the problems which arose in everyday life – government. This government would be appointed with the charge of directing the H.M.S. Society towards whatever end goal those members of the Society deemed worthy. As such “Society” continues to exist for the purpose of finding some meaning in the world.

This government took the form of Republics (Rome) or Monarchies (England) and when those types of Governments failed to protect the interests and the desires of their protected bodies, the concept of revolution and revolt began in the Renaissance then led to the idea of what we have today in terms of “Rights”. Rights can be defined as those values/actions/things which, the members of the Society deem to be of the utmost importance to be upheld, regardless of whom has been appointed to lead them at any given point in history. As such, these “rights” are the basic rules of existence – regardless of who is running the show, they must do so while keeping these ideas in mind.

These “Civil Rights” would be based off of what those people at that time thought were important and they would govern how the Society was run and how the people were to be governed.

While this general idea makes sense for a group of people who choose to live together and have consciously made that choice, the theory kind of falls apart when we think about the modern world. As I mentioned in another blog, I do not remember ever having sworn an oath to the Social Contract to Canada upon birth, to the United States upon immigrating to the states, or to Canada again upon my eventual return and as such I do not think it is that unreasonable to think that no one has signed or declared an oath to the Social Contract of where they reside.

From the above delineation, it appears that the use of human rights is to protect those people from the government who they appointed to steer the ship. While that may be a narrow minded view of rights, it certainly would fit. However, the notion that there is a general direction in which the ship is headed seems to preclude the notion of rights in that line of thinking. As such, when we throw a big group of people together, such as through generation and generation of birth and death and immigration and emigration, do we need to re-examine in what direction we want to take the ship and in turn evaluate which “rights” should be protected and which “rights” need to be marginalized for the “Greater Good”? Is that a dangerous thought that “Rights” can be marginalized for the “Greater Good”

tag: target="_blank">last301

Donald Rumsfeld on War Crimes Charges:

This quote was taken from wikipedia,

"On 14 November 2006 human rights advocate Wolfgang Kaleck brought charges at the German Federal Attorney General (Generalbundesanwalt) against Rumsfeld, former CIA Director George Tenet, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez and a number of other high officials for their involvement in human rights violations in Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. Kaleck acts as an advocate for more than 30 human rights organisations as well as 11 former prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. According to a spokesmen of the agency Federal Public Prosecutor Monika Harms will examine the statement of claim now."

I thought it was interesting to hear that someone had thought to bring war crimes charges against those people who were involved in the torture at the prison.

Citing article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention - "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind"

Furthermore, as Bush and the US, I believe did term the War in Iraq a "war".. not entirely sure if they officially did or not.. and as such the term Prisoner of War would easily apply.

Then by the above pieces of information, the Geneva Convention has been violated for which the crime would be perhaps Crimes Against Humanity or War Crimes..

It seems perfectly logical to me that in a society, where the head of corporations can be held accountable for the actions of their officers and underlings (Enron, Worldcom, etc) that why can't the head of Government Institutions be treated the same way?

I had a friend who laughed at this idea when it first came out.. I am not so sure that the claim is laughable.





tag: target="_blank">last301

Article for the week of November 26th, 2006.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6184854.stm

"Ecuador's presidential candidate Rafael Correa's political movement has claimed victory in Sunday's run-off election."

Another article regarding a political election in South America. The article states that Correa campaigned upon the promise to fight corruption and bring jobs to the area. He also promised to build 300,000 new homes.

There were a few things that struck my attention in the article. The first of which was again the mention of International Observers. While having a democratic election is a "good thing", the requirement for International Observers to overlook the results and ensure that the process is held correctly seems to echo, a bit, the sentiment that Democracy is being somewhat forced upon the country. In other words, if the people of Ecuador, wanted democracy to happen, would the presence of the observers be necessary? While, it may be that the majority of people do want the democracy, however, a select few, do not want democracy to function in its pure form and as such, the unbiased observers are required. That may justify the presence of those observers. That begs another question, if the process requires oversight, who is overseeing those who are overseeing and so on down the line. The answer seems to converge to the idea of trust - that at some point down the line, people must trust that the system is acting in the best wishes of those who are supposed to benefit from the system.

Yes - transparency in the process would be useful to those outside the system (transparency is a word I have encountered in the accounting world where the inner operations of an organization should be available for all to see). Also, a system could be set up where multiple people are involved (i.e. that two observers are required to sign each ballot indicating that they have seen it) and while those are good things, they can be gotten around if people so chose.

Not entirely where that train of thought would lead in a conclusion but perhaps it worth examining. Also, thinking to myself, I don't remember having heard about international observers regarding Canadian Elections or even US elections, british, etc. Are they needed? maybe? i don't know...

The second thing which caught my eye was that the article mentioned that the competition to Correa, Noboa, made his fortune in Bananas. Seemed interesting to see that someone who is/was involved with bananas after having read about the UFC.

tag: target="_blank">last301

Guarani and The Jesuits of Latin America

Background:
The Jesuit Order of the Catholic Church was founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola in 1540. Ignatius at a young age was sent, by his father, to work as a page in the courts of the Spanish Royalty. Nonetheless, Ignatius, “naturally of a bold and aspiring disposition,” (Nicolini, 10), longed for a life with more adventure than that of a page and as such joined the military. During a siege of a castle in France, Ignatius was severely wounded and due to his injuries, was unable to continue serving in the military. While recovering from his injuries, a pious friend is said to have given him a copy of Lives of the Saints to read. “The strange adventures… the praise, the adoration, the glory ,” (Nicolini, 12) enthralled Ignatius and provided for him an opportunity to satisfy his desire for adventure through Sainthood.
This quest led Ignatius to delve into a long period of meditation and self-introspection where he created the motto which would help shape the order “Ad majorem Dei gloriam,” – For the greater glory of God. This thought represented the concept that he thought of himself as “ a General fighting for the Divine Glory,” (Nicolini, 16). Ignatius gradually gained followers and eventually, with the blessing of Pope Paul, the order was brought into being.
Since the early days of the order, missions (long trips abroad to create new followers) were of vital importance. It was only nine years after the founding of the order that the first mission to Latin America commenced (Klaiber, 1). In direct contrast to the actions taken by the Spanish and the Portuguese in the new world as described by Las Cases and other texts, the Jesuits, “came to accept a kind of cultural relativism.”
The Jesuit technique was to assume ‘a thousand masks’, being all things to all men and with “holy cunning” accepting the limitations imposed by the local situation. Rather than destroy and condemn what they found, they tried to reshape and reorient existing practices and beliefs in order to establish a common ground on which to begin conversion. Then, by slowly, proving the superiority of their own ideas, the Jesuits were able to work to win the souls of men with tact and forbearance, not with rudeness and impatience. (Duignan, 726)

They overran the country to a great extent, and wherever they could find an Indian, they overwhelmed him with so much kindness, showed him so much affection.. that these injured men yielded by degress to the fascination, and accustomed themselves to look upon a Jesuit as a protector from the oppressions of other Europeans. And protectors they were, and proved to be. (Nicolini 300).

This line of thinking allowed the Jesuits to create a “fantastic Indian State” in Paraguay (the area of the Rio Del Plata) which has been referred to as a “Forest Utopia” (Duignan, 729). It has been said that “Scarcity and hunger were unknown” in the Reductiones (the name given to the towns). Furthermore, Jose Carlos Mariategui, Peru’s leading Marxist, commented that “these Indian societies were the only places where the Indians were actually better off after the conquest” (Klaiber, 1).These establishments were in substance a self supporting commune where items that were needed for the community were made by the inhabitants and distributed equally among the people. Surplus goods were used in trade for European goods which were not available in the commune. Whatever remained was split between a minor tribute to the King of Spain and for the use of the Jesuit fathers (Nicolini 304).
However, by the Treaty of Madrid, signed in 1750, Spain and Portugal agreed to exchange possession of territory. The exchange took place as an attempt to free the area of contraband (Bacigalupo 10). It so happened that the exchanged territory included 7 Reductiones or camps.. The Portuguese then proceeded to demand that the camps be moved. The Guarani would not listen to the new legal “owners” and chose to stay instead. In turn the Spanish and Portuguese forces entered into a two year war with the Indians from 1754-55 where the Indians were routed. The alleged actions of the Jesuits in supporting the war and the damning testimony of Bernado Ibanez , a former Jesuit priest who had been removed from the order on two occasions led to the Jesuit expulsion from Latin America in 1767. The Jesuit, since its inception, “had never been popular”, were thought of as “haughty and intriguing”, and generally were despised for the power and the influence which they wielded. (Bacigalupo 2). As such, when the opportunity presented itself, Ibanez jumped and gave damning testimony,
“According to Ibanez, not least among the reasons for the order’s power was its wealth. Ibanez claimed that the Jesuits had an income of more than 1,000,000 silver pesos each year from the labor of Indians .. and paid only 20,000 in taxes and expense…. The Jesuits had at their direct command an army of Indians with the latest firearms”. It is also said that each Indian had to undergo military training. (Bacigalupo 15).
This testimony led to the expulsion of the Jesuits and the turning over of the Indians into the hands of the Crown as the Jesuits were accused of putting themselves above the Crowns of Spain and Portugal in their creation of an independent illegal state (Bacigalupo 16).







Body:
The story of the Guarani Indians and the Jesuit Reductiones, in what was called Paraguay at the time, has three main points which can be tied into human and civil rights discourse in the region. The original actions of the Spanish and the Portugese upon arrival in the new world, the “kindness” showed by the Jesuits in their creation of the camps, and the apparent disregard the Jesuits showed towards the “legal” authorities of the region.
The actions of the Spanish and the Portuguese upon arrival in the new world cannot be called anything short of barbaric. Through the stories told by Las Cases, we have a great example of the ability of humanity to disregard the value of human life. The thought that the natives of the land were savages or non-human was used to justify the actions taken against them. However, from a scientific point of view, it has been said that we can deemed a being to be a member of a species if and when two beings can create offspring together. As such, as children between the Europeans and the Natives were possible, it is relatively difficult to argue the natives were not human and as such, worthy of the rights which would be afforded humans by documents such as the Magna Charter. Furthermore, even if the right to life was not guaranteed by a specific document, many people, including the authors of the American Bill of Rights, have argued that such basic rights are self-evident and as such they would exist without having been written down. This was a return to the original rights discourse of “might makes right”.
In apparent contrast, the Jesuits in Latin America showed a greater respect for the concept of human and civil rights. The goal of the Jesuits in coming to the new world was at least, in part, to attempt to Christianize the natives who were present. The use of what is called today “cultural relativism” to attempt and find some common ground on which to begin a relationship with the natives rather than dominating them with might, showed a greater respect for their common man. It acknowledged that the Jesuits did not have the right to enslave the natives and teach western European thought as it, by nature, was superior. The Jesuits also provided a protected community where the natives could be free from the life of slavery or death that was promised to them by the Spaniards or the Portuguese. A system of government was set up and persons were able to enjoy property of their own, rights which are commonplace and considered fundamental to the societies of the present day. (Nicolini 304)
However, while the Jesuits did provide a community where life was considered to better for the natives (Nicolini 300), it has also been said that the natives in these camps were slaves nonetheless.
“To keep these people in such a state of dependence and submission, the Jesuits secluded them from the right of the world. No individual could leave the Reduction without permission, and no European was allowed to visit these Reductions unaccompanied, or to have free intercourse with the inhabitants. The knowledge of any other than the native language was altogether banished, and aversion and prejudices against the Europeans as carefully cherished as in ancient Egypt.” (Nicolini 305).

While it could be argued that the Jesuits were taking a paternalistic point of view to try and protect the natives from those people who had enslaved and killed many races in the area, these facts indicate that the Jesuits remained to consider themselves superior to the Natives where such a consideration may not have been appropriate. The thought can be summed up in the thought “What right did the Jesuits have to do that?”.
Similarly it has been said of the Jesuits in the writings of Nicolini and Bacigalupo that the Jesuits thought themselves to be superior to most people in the world with their intellect and power with the Holy Father in Rome. While the Jesuits, as a Catholic religious order of priests, served ultimately the Catholic God and from an earthly perspective the Pope, they seemed to pay little attention to the persons and kings who had legal title over the lands in which they operated; as described by Bernado Ibaned de Echavarri in his reports on the actions of the Jesuits in Latin America. Bernado described a society which paid 2% taxes to the legal owners of the land. Furthermore, the society, which did not know the language of the Kings and which was forbidden to know the language, maintained a standing army which has been compared to that of the Swiss (the elite papal guard) in terms of skill (Bacigalupo 15). It is worth repeating that the final excess funds went back to Jesuits from the economy in the camps. The Guarani and the Jesuits appear to have made their own social contract with themselves and did not think to ask permission from those who had claim to the land. Furthermore, the Jesuits, with their intellect and wisdom, should have been able to foresee what would happen to their Reductiones as they were constructed and should have thought about who was really injured by their loss, and that was the Guarani.
The story of the Jesuits and the Guarani shows some overall progress in terms of human rights in Latin America in that a society did exist where violence, slavery and death were not the norm. However, the society did not last in the area of violence and death in the long run due to the inability of the Jesuits to protect the Guarani from the political and economic climate of the world.




Annotated Bibliography:
1)

Nicolini, G.B , History of the Jesuits: Their Origin, Progress, Doctrines, and Designs, George Bell & Sons, London, 1893.

This 400 page novel by Nicolini is mostly a historical document which looks at the Jesuits from their beginnings with an extensive backstory into the life of St. Ignatius of Loyala and his thoughts, philosophies, and affect on the order. Nicolini paints a very militaristic point of view on the Jesuits, that they were the Soldiers of Christ in an attempt to push back the wave of Protestantism in the world and to expand Catholicism around the globe. Nicolini provides a balanced and in depth story of the Jesuits in an attempt to portray them both as the intelligent, caring people who joined the order but also provided evidence of some obvious flaws and errors in their ways when they attempted to pursue their power too far. Nicolini provided mostly negative descriptions of the life in the Reductiones focusing on the lack of rights afforded to the Natives.
2)
Klaiber, Jeffrey, S.J. , The Jesuits in Latin America: legacy and current emphases. Thomas Gale & Goliath, 2005.

This article, written for the International Bulletin of Missionary Research, provides a short history of the Jesuits as people who established schools and universities in the area of Latin and South America since the 1540’s. Klaiber provides positive information regarding the lives in the Reductiones, stating that “hunger and scarcity were unknown (Klaiber ,1). Klaiber acknowledges that the Jesuits may have practiced paternalism with respect to the Natives, however he does not mention that the paternalism, with respect to language and freedom, may have been a tool or instrument used by the Jesuits to maintain their position of power which was providing the order with significant funds and power.
3)
Bacigalupo, Mario Ford, Bernado Ibanez de Echavarri and the image of the Jesuit Missions of Paraguay, The Americas, Vol 35, No. 4, April 1979, pp 475-494.

Bacigalupo provides an account of the fall and expulsion of the Jesuits in Latin America in 1767 with respect to the actions surrounding the 1750 Treaty of Madrid and the Reductiones and the war with the Guarani. Bacigalupo argues that it was the damning testimony of Bernado Ibanez de Echavarri, a twice removed Jesuit priest who gave the proof to the courts of Europe that the Jesuits were involved in the uprising and as such were a direct threat to the crown. Bacigalupo does not provide any information as to how credible the testimony of Ibanez is with respect to the fact that as a twice removed member of the order, Ibanez would most likely harbor ill-feelings towards the Jesuits and easily could have allowed that to influence his testimony. Furthermore, Bacigalupo does not highlight the thought that the Jesuits were not popular in the eyes of many Europeans for their use of “cultural relativism” when recruiting new members. This “cultural relativism” approach enraged many Europeans who wished to see the order fail.
4)
Duignan, Peter, Early Jesuit Missionaries: A Suggestion for Further Study, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 60, No. 4 (Aug, 1958, pp725-732)

This article provides an in depth account of how the Jesuits were successful in the creation of the Reductiones. It describes a passive approach of showing kindness to a people who had been subject to violence and slavery. It describes an accepting approaching where customs of the natives were merged with customs of the Jesuits in order to better understand the natural law. In this article Duignan appears to be describing the actions of the Jesuit Missionaries in line with the current day notion of Cultural Relativism.




















Bibliography:
Bacigalupo, Mario Ford, Bernado Ibanez de Echavarri and the image of the Jesuit Missions of Paraguay, The Americas, Vol 35, No. 4, April 1979, pp 475-494.

Duignan, Peter, Early Jesuit Missionaries: A Suggestion for Further Study, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 60, No. 4 (Aug, 1958, pp725-732).

Klaiber, Jeffrey, S.J. , The Jesuits in Latin America: legacy and current emphases. Thomas Gale & Goliath, 2005.

Nicolini, G.B , History of the Jesuits: Their Origin, Progress, Doctrines, and Designs, George Bell & Sons, London, 1893.

Las Casas, Bartolome de. A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies. Trans. Nigel Griffin. London: Penguin, 1992. 3-70


tag: target="_blank">last301

The readings this week I didn't find to be extremely exciting to read. However, there were certain lines which caught my attention more than others...

1 - "The divine light of madness ... shone brighter than ever."

The sentence concerned me that it would be extremely odd to hear those words describing a person in power. The term "divine light of madness" perhaps goes to say something regarding the effect that Religion had on the people of the region or perhaps just the effect that the "civil war" not really the best term to use... but the violence which had engulfed the country had really taken the toll on the people.

2 - "One way or another.. the Indian always gets it in the neck"

This sentence seems to run true for all natives of South and Latin and even North America... that whatever they tried to do... they were screwed in the end.


3 - "we soon discover that Nebaj woman are willing to sell not only their precious weavings, but also their oldest family treasures"

I am not sure if this is a sad statement about how much money was needed in the community or whether or not it was a comment about how little value was placed in anything other than the "millenial pride" as it is described.


tag: target="_blank">last301

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6161396.stm

This article is about an abortion in Nicaragua. It states that the pre-dominantly Catholic Nicaragua has voted to ban all abortions, even when the birth puts the life of the mother in danger.

This article surprised me that a country in the world today would ban abortion. While this is a victory for the rights of the unborn, it could also be looked at as a loss for the rights of mothers/woman in general. It is an interesting question as to what right would take first place in the debate. Do the unborn have rights? The fetus will develop into a person (most likely) and if it doesn't by aborting it we are denying its rights to have existed or its chance to have existed... but on the other hands... does a fetus constitute a person and if not should it be protected?

Tough questions....



tag: target="_blank">last301

Bitter Fruit

The introduction of the Banana seems such a minor thing that would cause such a stir in the world. This story seems to follow a familiar path. Those with power find something that they want and figure out a way to get what they want. They hide behind (while there may be some truth to what they say) the thought that they are doing good for the country who is being "be-sieged" in the long run. A thought comes to mind regarding something that John Maynard Keynes said, "In the long run, we're all dead".

Regardless, the notion that anyone thought that taking advantage of a people would continue unchallenged for a long time seems ridiculous. As such when Jacobo Arbenz became president, it didn't surprise to hear what happened next. He wanted more and those who had "Given so much already" became offended and suddenly became very interested in the letter of the law. Convenient.

What else I thought was almost funny in a way was the language that was used in chapter 11, the final countdown. I remember in high school history course my teacher talking about ww2 and the american entrance into the war and the quote from the president at the time.. " I want in, but I need an excuse". This seemed to be echoed by the sentiment of the Secretary of State in the first paragraph.

Also, the US' complete disregard for international law regarding the shipments to Guatemala or around the waters seemed almost funny in a way.

The entire story seemed almost ridiculous to believe. That a western government, the supposed leaders of the free world and proponents of democracy, would plan/back/be involved in a coup in order to protect some bananas.. interesting..




I acknowledge that this is all written by an American journalist and another gentleman involved in the UN and as such may not be entirely accurate.

tag: target="_blank">last301

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6069022.stm

Tonight we are back to an article about Canals in South America.

This article discusses the possibility of Nicaragua building a canal. The cost of the project 18 billion dollars. The need for such a canal... questionable at best...

While the economy of Nicaragua could use the revenue and the jobs that this project would bring to the region, does the human race as a whole require another huge hole to be made in the South American Continent in order to make shipping routes a little faster. Do the needs of the world outweigh the needs of Nicaragua? Well the land does "belong" to the Nicaraguan people and as such I guess the decision should rest with them.. will it? Should the decision be made in mind that this canal will undoubtedly hurt the Panama canal to the south and cause lost revenue/profit/jobs/ etc... Do they have an obligation to think about that? What good does it do humanity if people are made to suffer a little less while others, who are hard done by are made to suffer more... all to the benefit of the wealthy north?

The article raisedthe issue as to whether or not the canal fills a need or whether or not it fills a want or a gap as the article describes it.

Such projects usually bring international recognition to a place as well as a long and storied history surrounding the project. However, the process of building a canal is not an easy one. The troubles that were endured to build the Panama Canal were vast and many many bodies lay under the water.

Another question arises as to whether or not we, as humans, have the rights to destroy a large piece of land and in turn cause the environmental fallout which would ensue.. however,, a bit of extra area over which to spread the water may ease the melting of the polar ice caps... joke..

Just the rantings of an accountant on Sunday Evening



tag: target="_blank">last301

On the readings for this week,

I think I will go back to an old way of blogging for these readings by highlighting items which caught my eye.

1 - In the Walsh readings, it was interesting to see the notion of the Common Good / General Will used and the fact that the Government was attempting to say that they were acting in the best interests of the General Will. Perhaps they thought that they were. My friends and I make fun of the concept of Utilitarianism on a similar principle. While the government may have been benefiting most or a certain population by harming others.. as long as the benefit of the one group was greater than the pain of the third party.. then... it should be done.. such a ridiculous concept when taken to the extreme. If I will get more enjoyment out of beating up this bum than he/she will feel pain during it.. then I should do it... ridiculous.

2 - The denial of the writ of Habeas Corpus seemed extreme and the right to be represented. Some fairly basic and universally agreed upon rights... not a good sign

3 - The discussion of the economic failures of the government appealed to my background in such matters. It is interesting to see in the present day that the Government has so much power to run/control/influence an economy that can cause harm or bring abundance to those under the "power" of the Government. Is this a new generation where the role of the Government is not to protect our rights but in addition to that , the government should monitor the economy and ensure that no seriuos problems arise. I wonder...

On the readings by Festowitz,

1 - The description of language to confuse, alter, is very interesting. It reminded me of 1984 where the language was used to alter the minds of the people. The power of language...

2 - Again the thought that only those who were "unhuman" or someone lesser beings were having their "rights" taken away from them (page 23-24).

3 - The actual dictionary of terms which were used on page 51 was interesting to read. I actually found at a couple of moments that the information which was included in the writings made me a bit nauseous.. The description of what would happen... unpleasant. I also thought that it was shocking that such acts would take place in a building in the city and next to the bank or whatever else.. as described on the bottom of page 51.

4 - Noticed that an accusation of torture by the French and the Americans... interesting.

5 - Infestation of maggots..

6 - That the guy would go home to his mother during his lunch break. It seemed as though he did not see these people as anything but a rat...

7 - In the Night and Fog, the story about the woman who was allowed to eat of her own china in the camp. This was amazing that these people showed that they had the organizational skills to keep her and her possessions safe and link the two together in order to say that this plate belongs to that number...

8 - Attempts to convince them that they were not human..

9 - On page 71, it was interesting to hear the story about the man who collapsed after a wife stood by her husband. It seemed as though that he (the soldier) had been convinced that these acts were necessary in order to change the minds in order for a better future... and the thought that even after what they had did... after the sins they had committed... that what they had been promised would not come to pass.. just shook his world....



tag: target="_blank">last301

Protests in Oaxaca:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/10/29/mexico-.html

This week protesters in Oaxaca have had the police move in on them in an attempt to silence their voices. The protesters claim that President Vicente Fox stole the last election and has been violating human rights throughout his term in order to quiet political dissidents.

Three people were killed in the protests and it is thought that the police were somehow involved in the killings.

This article does really shine a good light on the human rights situation in the region. One right that we enjoy is the right to protest (while these protests should remain peaceful and there was no information easily available regarding the manor of the protests in Oaxaca). Furthermore, the protests are regarding the functioning of the democratic process. These are serious concerns. If a president has fixed an election (not saying either way) but shouldn't there be someway to appease the concerns of the public? How far is reasonable to go? How much work should the government have to do to prove that? Does the burden of proof lie on the government or on the public?

In a legal setting the burden of proof lies with the accuser, however, in this scenario, if a real and credible claim can be brought (assuming that people can agree upon what would be reasonable and credible) should the public have to prove that the government is guilty or would the government have to prove their innocence. Would those in charge be treated as guilty first... ?

Thoughts from an accountant on Sunday night.

tag: target="_blank">last301

In the article by Nouzeilles, the notion of the "Doctrine of National Security" put forth by the United States was mentioned and this ethos was also discussed at some length by Montaldo in the second reading of the week.

On a side note, prior to entering into a discussion regarding the "Doctrine of National Security" and Praetorianism, I found it interesting to see the words "Never Again" used in a report denouncing Human Rights violations. I would think that this notion of "Never Again" would have been a great slogan to raly around the first time... but it seems to be losing whatever appeal it may have had to me the more and more I see that people have "vowed" or thought that this last time would be the last time. I seem to be getting more and more pessimistic as time goes by.

The story of Argentina starts and goes as some of the stories go regarding human rights... country has a severe economic downturn and people begin to become upset at their lot and their life.. i.e. the government has failed to protect their rights... therefore, someone or a group of people rise saying that they will protect and further the lives of all only if they will be trusted for a time to get it done.. people rally behind.. government gets scared... starts atttempting to secure their position by "necessary means" etc... etc...

I do not know the specifics of the Argentinian governmental process, however, it seems to me that the inability of the people of a nation to be able to remove a government or person from power quickly but without violence seems to be lacking in most countries.. or is it? Again, I do not the specifics of most political structures... While I understand that removing people from power is not an easy to do in the first place as those in power do not want to relinquish their power and those people are usually powerful themselves in one way or another...

Regardless, it seems to me that many "developed" countries that lapse into trouble with rights and political institutions usually have a crisis event that makes the economy/ lives of the people very trying.. and if this crisis cannot be handled well and efficiently by those in power, then the situation will become much worse. A person can only say "Trust me" for so long before people begin to lose faith in those words and want change. Then, in order to keep power, national security comes into play, as a functioning country cannot have violent rebellion occuring nor can there be anarchy.. which causes problems to worsen as those who have the courage to speak and act begin to have themselves marginalized.. Praetorianism works its way in there as fraudulent leaders would not be inclined to ensure that the rights of their subjects/ those who elected them to power.




tag: target="_blank">last301

An article this week that I found to be of some interest is regarding the Panama Canal.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6074106.stm

The article discusses a plan to expand the Canal in order to accomodate larger shipping vessels which have been become more prevalent on the seas. The Canal as it stands is not able to handle the larger ships in a manner which allows for quick speedy and predictable passage.

The plan would cost approximately 3 to 5 Billion Dollars and would create significant temporary construction jobs and increased jobs in other sectors regarding the Canal (secondary jobs).

Critics say that the funds should be better used to directly help the poor of the country while advocates argue that if the canal does not receive the expansion they will lose further market share causing a increase in the amount of poverty.

The notion of economics and what is the best course of action comes into account on this debate. While helping the poor of a country to enter a middle class seems to be an agreable notion, how is this best acheived? Is it acheived through direct transfer payments (distribution of excess funds to the poor) or should the poor give something back? If they should give something back, what should that be?

While I agree that construction jobs would be created in the short run, these jobs are temporary and do not really add any long term value to the country, especially as it would unlikely that a Panamain (spelling?) construction contractor would be used to do the building (that last statement might require justification in a proper paper, but it has been ignored for the purposes of this blog). Therefore the real benefit of this project would be both the increased revenue from the expected increased traffic and the fact that the Canal is losing market share as it stands currently. The decision as to whether or not this project should be undertaken as opposed to other potential projects (assuming there are some) should be weighed against that thought primarily.


tag: target="_blank">last301

This weeks reading have unfortunately been affected by the wonderful paper that we must write..

Zarala's readings seemed to focus on the concept that the natives of the Americas were obviously people born under the laws of nature and the Christian God and as such they should be treated with the respect that commands. It can be noted on page 35 that the phrase "Are they not men? Have they not reasoning mind?..." in reference to the innocent people of Hispaniola.

Again, later on, similar to Las Casas, Zarala seems to envy the life of the natives by saying "they surpass other nations... in that they offer they own sons as a sacrafice for the good of their people." This is in reference to the notion that the people would do action which would harm themselves personally for the good of the overall community as well as a reference to the thought they would God's commands similar to Abraham (i believe) to sacrifice his only son for the Lord.

He further elaborates to say that the Indians were men of reason capable of thought and orderly way of life, the only thing required to save them was the notion of Christianity.

Much is said of the Aristotle way of life and other somewhat boring sections of the dialogue.

An interesting comparison was made on page 41 referencing the words of las Casas explaining that man, even the European man, once was a savage who were uncivilized and had untilled land... this changed throughout time and as such the same should be offered to those people of the Americas. Should a child, once born, be assumed to be able to think and act as an adult would be a general comparison to the thought which was put forth..

I also thought the part regarding the work of Jose de Acosta regarding the three types of peoples of the Americas and Asia on page 43. This was further followed by a wonderful discussion of a similar debate to the nature vs nurture debate that remains today regarding if the barbarian could be tamed and educated.

It was interesting to see that these debates did have some effect eventually and that the enslavement of the peoples of the americas was made illegal and that some attempts were made to free them. While this was done too late in the eyes of many as the damage had already been done, it was nice to see that it was done.

A question arises that why can humans not forsee the problems that come and be pro-active rather than re-active in order to prevent problems. Is it a lack of foresight and is hindsight really 20 20.

It seemed that the lesson learned regarding the natives was not extended to those peoples of Africa who were enslaved and marginalized instead. Well done humanity. Have learned anything since that time? Are we any different... any more civilized or advanced?

Near the end of the reading it was stated that the notion of human rights in the americas really has been influenced by those rights which have been ignored before and that we have become engrained to ensure that it happens "never again"... a phrase which seems to be uttered too often to have any meaning.. perhaps a bit pessimistic.. but maybe it isn't....

tag: last301

This article I found http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_23158.shtml is almost shocking in its contents for me to read.

The thought that the world has turned to secret political assasinations rather than discourse through the established mediums is a bit radical to assume is the norm, however, it is fun and perhaps worthwhile to examine whether or not there is any truth behind the notion.

The world has been involved in espionage, assasinations, secret rescue missions (i am thinking of a secret raid on an embassy to recover hostages some 5 - 10 years ago), however there have been many instances where discussion has been the name of the game. The cold war ended with discussions and a changeover in policy, for example.

Regardless, the effect of human rights if one country decides to impose their view of what is right and just on the rest of the world is a negative one, or are they justified? At what point do the speeches of Huga Chavez and George Bush begin to signal that (either) is a threat to the common good (whatever that may be) or the good of their (the nation which they lead) nation and if they do that, does the world (the UN?) have a right or even the responsibility to act?

Unfortunately, the world has signed no social contract with each other... or have we?


tag: last301