Aug 23

Tweens are All About Fame

A recent study conducted by the University of California in Los Angeles revealed some interesting results for children between the ages of nine and eleven.  The study polled young children between the given age group, and asked them to rank values that are important to them.  Out of all the values that the tweens could have chosen, “fame” came shining through at number one.  Other important values that came in as the top most contenders were physical fitness and monetary success.  On the other hand, community service and volunteer work were ranked rather low, and did not appear to be of much concern to the children.

What has happened between 1997 (when kids in a similar study ranked “fame” as fifteenth on their list of important values) and 2011?  According to UCLA’s study, the yearning for fame and financial success is a product of the television shows, commercials, and movies tweens watch.  Tweens are one of the most highly targeted audience members for television executives, and an entire media empire has been dedicated to them.  Shows like “Hannah Montana” and “iCarly” depict fairly young kids skyrocketing to stardom through singing, acting, or internet blogging.  Internet sensations turned into mega superstars, like Justin Bieber, also give off the impression that fame is the ultimate goal that tweens should aspire to attain.

Unfortunately, this means that young children are clearly losing sight of the importance of family, friends, and a good education.  According to Patricia Greenfield, co-author of the study and Ph.D from the Department of Pyschology at UCLA, “Tweens are unrealistic about what they have to do to become famous.  They may give up on actually preparing for careers and realistic goals.”  Statements such as these are extremely problematic in today’s world because they indicate that there is a lack of understanding on the part of young children.  Instead of focusing on becoming doctors, teachers, lawyers, and establishing strong bonds between friends and family, tweens are looking for the quick fix to super stardom.

As alarming as the news is, the blame cannot completely fall on the shoulders of these star struck tweens.  Television shows, movies, parents, and communities themselves need to help children become in tune with truly important values like volunteer work and community service.  Furthermore, as difficult as it may be, it is important to get children involved in activities other than watching television or using the computer to watch TV.  It is imperative to remember that tweens will one day be the future of America, and they cannot be concerned about only fame, money, and physical beauty.

If you are interested in learning more about issues affecting the youth under the age of 25, the SISGI Group’s Alliance for Positive Youth Development will be hosting a webinar on Wednesday, August 31st.  The “State of Youth-Issues Impacting Youth Under 25” webinar will be from 2-3 pmEST, and will be an excellent opportunity to learn what issues are impacting youth the most.  To register for the webinar, simply go here, and follow APYD @ideas4youth on twitter or like us on Facebook to learn more about APYD’s youth initiative.

Share

Aug 22

Voluntourism Certification

A few weeks ago Tourism Concern, a UK-based non-profit focused on ethical tourism and travel, announced that they will soon be launching Gap Year and International Volunteering Standard (GIVS).  GIVS is a voluntourism standardization program that will ensure that voluntourism companies are regulated and are a benefit to the destination communities.  As you may recall from my last post about voluntourism, voluntourism programs often operate to maximize their own profits rather than make a sustainable impact, and that is what GIVS seeks to correct.  Organizations who seek GIVS certification as responsible and sustainable businesses will have to submit to independent third-party assessment in order to demonstrate that they have achieved the required standards.

Those standards include things like: achievable objects that have been identified by host partners and communities; fair, consistent and transparent recruitment procedures; appropriate preparation, training, and induction for volunteers; and ensuring the safety and well-being of volunteers and the members of the destination community.  Once an organization has submitted to the independent review and received accreditation the process will have to be repeated every two years in order to ensure continuing good work and progress.

Though the program has not yet officially launched (the announcement only said that the program would be launched sometime in the near future) the internet voluntourism community is already engaged in debate over GIVS.  You can read some of the responses to the announcement here and here, but I’ll summarize the debate here.  Basically, there is concern over whether or not this program is a marketing ploy (remember my post about Sandals?) whereby voluntourism organizations can pay a fee to get a meaningless certificate they can use to make themselves look better to potential volunteers.  Another concern is that by legitimately auditing and verifying voluntourism organizations Tourism Concern is opening itself up to the threat of serious lawsuits if one of the organizations they verify does not end up being worthy, and so will not stand by their certifications.  Tourism Concern, of course, insists that their program is legitimate and that they will not back down if things get difficult.

Regardless of whether or not the program will be meaningful, the issue Tourism Concern is trying to address is highly meaningful.  The voluntourism industry is booming, and some sort of certification or regulation seems necessary.  There must be a way to make sure that the industry is benefitting the destination community and that money is making its way to the destination community.  Unfortunately, that is not easier said than done.  Who would come up with regulations?  Who would enforce them?  The destinations voluntourism companies go to are diverse and have a wide variety of needs, meaning that different organizations would measure the impact they were making in different ways.  For example, the needs of a rural village in South America are very different from the needs of a densely-packed city in Africa.  How could there be one set of regulations that can measure the impact of voluntourism programs in both such locations?  Voluntourism organizations should be focused on meeting the needs of the local community they seek to help, not on some broad checklist of requirements so that they can be certified or accredited.  Further, voluntourism is an industry and so naturally is focused on profits, and so setting up and enforcing standards could easily disintegrate into a marketing gimmick–and in some cases already has.  There are Voluntourism companies should be accountable to their message of making a sustainable impact and helping the destination community, but coming up with a unified set of standards and someone to enforce them is going to be very difficult.  I think the best bet is probably regional organizations, since they will at least have a better idea of what needs to be accomplished in that area.  Still, that’s not a perfect solution.  Much of the burden should (and does) fall on the voluntourist.  Don’t book a trip with an organization that seems to be more focused on profits or on your having a unique experience than on what is needed in the local community.  If possible, coordinate your trip yourself by calling up local (to the destination community you wish to visit) organizations to see if they need volunteers and by booking your own stay in local hotels or guest houses.  We cannot rely on regulating agencies to take care of everything, especially not in an area as complex as volunteer tourism.

Michelle Bovée is a SISGI Group Program and Research Intern focused on international affairs, economic development, and responsible tourism. To learn more about the SISGI Group visit www.sisgigroup.org

Share

Aug 22

Preventing Abu Ghraib

Last spring, I took an ethics class called Policy Choice as Value Conflict. Throughout the semester, we students debated the merits of riveting topics, ranging from pros and cons of moral philosophies such as utilitarianism and deontology to the legality of controversial issues such as capital punishment, euthanasia, prostitution, gay marriage, and even bestiality. Our class comprised of conservatives and liberals, atheists and evangelicals. Each day, we heard every side’s intriguing arguments and rarely reached consensus.

But occasionally, we did find unanimous agreement. One such instance, our professor assigned us to watch “The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib,” a documentary made by filmmaker Rory Kennedy. In her documentary, Kennedy explored the horrific abuse American soldiers inflicted upon Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. We all agreed. The inhumane treatment that these prisoners received violated international law and was inherently wrong.

In case you don’t know, the Abu Ghraib prison was a notorious prison in Iraq, at which American guards committed various human rights violations upon prisoners, humiliating them by forcing them to be naked, torturing them, mutilating them, raping them, and forcing them to rape each other. After pictures were leaked that documented the torture at Abu Ghraib, the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command performed an investigation that confirmed the wrongdoing by the guards. 11 soldiers were eventually court-martialed and sentenced to military prison.

When I first heard the story about Abu Ghraib and the torture that happened there, I assumed that these guards epitomized evil. That I, nor any other decent human being, would ever have done the same thing had we been in those guards’ shoes. I looked at the photographs in disbelief and wondered how American soldiers could do something so barbaric.

But the film managed to humanize these perpetrators. Kennedy conducted interviews with many of the guards that tortured the prisoners. While they certainly weren’t blameless, they did not seem to be as unimaginably evil or sadistic as you might think. The guards seemed to have been transformed by their environment. As one guard said, Abu Ghraib “turned me into a monster.” Another guard followed up saying “It’s easy to sit back in America or in different countries and say, ‘Oh, I would have never done that,’ but, until you’ve been there, let’s be realistic: You don’t know what you would have done.”

Comments such as these reminded me of an experiment I learned about in a psychology class. In 1971, Stanford University psychology professor Phillip Zimbardo conducted an experiment in which he monitored the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. For the experiment, Zimbardo randomly assigned 24 psychologically healthy subjects roles as guards and prisoners. He set up a mock jail, gave the “guards” wooden batons, and gave both “guards” and “prisoners” appropriate uniforms.

During the experiment, the relationship between guards and prisoners became increasingly hostile. Each group internalized their roles and developed solidarity. Early on in the experiment, the prisoners rioted against the guards. The situation quickly escalated. Over the course of the next few days, guards tortured the prisoners by taking away their mattresses and forcing them to sleep on concrete, refusing to allow prisoners to use the bathroom, and even forcing them to strip naked. The chaos that ensued was so bad that Zimbardo had to stop the experiment after 6 days as opposed to the planned 2 weeks because he feared inflicting permanent psychological damage on the subjects.

Recalling this experiment, I wondered if the guards at Abu Ghraib were unique. If psychologically stable subjects in Zimbardo’s experiment managed to commit torture on completely innocent prisoners over the course of six days, it seems pretty unlikely that the Abu Ghraib atrocities are isolated incidents. One account I read by Dave Eshelman, reportedly the most abusive and sadistic guard in Zimbardo’s experiment, was particularly revealing:

When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, my first reaction was, this is so familiar to me. I knew exactly what was going on. I could picture myself in the middle of that and watching it spin out of control. When you have little or no supervision as to what you’re doing, and no one steps in and says, “Hey, you can’t do this”—things just keep escalating. You think, how can we top what we did yesterday? How do we do something even more outrageous? I felt a deep sense of familiarity with that whole situation.

One thing seems clear from Zimbardo’s experiment and the Abu Ghraib scandal. Power corrupts when allowed to exist unsupervised. Such abuses of power should not be allowed under any circumstance. Thus, prison guards need to be trained to understand the potential dangers of the guard-prisoner relationship. They should also face stringent on-the-ground supervision by an authority figure that ensures that no wrongdoing takes place. Finally, there needs to be transparency between these prisons and the public. We should be able to see pictures and hear reports about what is happening at the prisons. By taking these measures, we can prevent future abuses of human rights similar to what we saw in Abu Ghraib.

 

Shaunak Varma is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group focusing on mental health. To learn more about the SISGI Group visit www.sisgigroup.org.
Share

Aug 19

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind?

Though most of us would like to be part of a utopia, unfortunate circumstances often fall beyond the grasp of our control. Regardless of how much we manage to improve the world, trauma is an inherent part of life. After all, the probability of us completely eliminating the prevalence of rape, murder, war, tragedy, and natural disasters is next to nil. Victims of such trauma are often burdened with Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

PTSD can cause victims to have flashbacks to moments of trauma, insomnia, and bouts of anger. Up until now, most treatment for PTSD has been relegated to psychotherapy. However, recent pharmacological developments have given clinicians another potential way to treat patients.

University of Montreal researchers at the Centre for Studies on Human Stress of Louis-H. Lafontaine Hospital recently found that Metyrapone, a drug that has been used to diagnose adrenal insufficiency and treat Cushing’s syndrome, can also be used to impair the retrieval of negative emotional memories. The drug decreases the amount of cortisol (a stress hormone involved in memory recall). Under the influence of the drug, people are unable to recall traumatic memories, whereas neutral and positive memories are unharmed.

This research clearly has implications on the treatment of PTSD. As lead researcher Marie-France Marin stated, “[their] findings may help people deal with traumatic events by offering them the opportunity to ‘write-over’ the emotional part of their memories during therapy.”

But, though I acknowledge the struggle patients with PTSD often face, I question whether eliminating part of their past is the best solution to their problem. Thus far, one of the biggest differences between humans’ memories and hard drives is that we cannot completely control the inputs and memory of a human. We have not been able to merely discard disagreeable memories or experiences. As terrible as they may have been, these memories and experiences often help make us who we are.

When Mohandas Gandhi was a young lawyer in South Africa, he once boarded the first class car of a train. Although he had a ticket for this seat, the train had a policy that non-Whites were not allowed in this car. A policeman ordered him to go to a third class car. Furious at the unjustness of this law, Gandhi refused to move. He was eventually beaten and thrown off the train. Gandhi went on to dedicate his career and life to fighting injustice, eventually helping “combat poverty, expanding women’s rights, ending untouchability, increasing [India’s] economic self-reliance, and achieving the independence of India from foreign domination.”

I do not know for sure if Gandhi’s experience on the train in South Africa directly inspired him to cultivate so much change in the world. But I do know that many good people, Gandhi included, have become stronger as a result of previous hardships. It is dangerous to set a precedent suggesting that it is acceptable to forget the past. As many novelists and filmmakers have portrayed in their work, people can achieve dystopia when in search of utopia. I think it is noble that researchers want to protect people from their pasts. But I wonder if the cost of this protection is too high.

Shaunak Varma is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group focusing on mental health. To learn more about the SISGI Group visit www.sisgigroup.org.
Share

Aug 19

America’s Hidden Secret Part II

In my last post, I gave an overview of the plight of U.S. child farmworkers and the lack of protection they receive.  Hundreds of thousands of children are working on U.S. farms, picking the fruits and vegetables that land in our regularly shopped grocery stores.  Despite popular belief, the agricultural industry has been found to be the most dangerous of all child labor industries in the U.S.  It is an industry that is often bound in health, safety, economic, social, educational, emotional and civil rights violations.  Most U.S. child farmworkers begin working long adult hours as young as 11 or 12, with many starting part-time hours much younger than that—as young as 5 or 6.  U.S. law is not doing enough to protect children in agriculture and the nation is generally unaware of the reality of child farmworkers in their own country.

There is a clear lack of protection for young agricultural workers written into the U.S.’s Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) when compared to other industries employing youth.  In regards to age, young agricultural workers may begin working in any farm job without restrictions.  This includes operating heavy machinery such as tractors, working from ladders or scaffolds over 20 feet tall, handling and applying toxic chemicals “identified by the words “danger,” “poison,” or “warning” or a skull and crossbones on the label,” and handling and using explosives, among other tasks.  However, in all other legal industries hiring youth, 16 and 17 year olds are not allowed to endure hazardous work conditions and are protected under law.  16 years old is the general minimum age for children being able to work in nonagricultural jobs, whereas 14 is the standard minimum age for children to work in agriculture.  Yet, 14 is not the bare minimum age in agriculture as there are many exceptions that are often taken advantage of.  Children who are 12 and 13 may work on farms that employ their parents or if their parents give consent.  Children under 12 years old are able to work on farms with parental consent as well, as long as it is one where employees are not subject to the minimum wage requirements of FLSA.  Finally, children who are 10 and 11 may legally hand-harvest short-season crops.  Still, due to the lax labor laws regarding youth in the agricultural industry, it is not uncommon for children to begin working even younger than that.  Further, while there are strict restrictions on the number of hours youth may work in nonagricultural industries, there are little to no restrictions in agriculture.

There is a proposed bill that would greatly improve the protection of children working in agriculture—the Children’s Act for Responsible Employment (CARE Act, HR 3564).  It was introduced in 2009 by Rep. Lucille Royball-Allard with the intention of revoking exemptions made in child labor law at it relates to the agricultural industry.  This bill is necessary to include in current legislation.  It will begin to help and protect children who are currently, or at-risk of, enduring the hazardous work conditions that accompany the agriculture industry.  The FLSA has outdated laws when it comes to children in agriculture.  The misperceptions of the agricultural industry being safe are fueled by current law.  People and parents think that it is ok that children are exposed to agricultural work environments because the law says so.  By changing the law, we would not only be protecting children from harm, but we would also have a tool to build a strong foundation in educating farm owners and the general public on the realities of children in farm work.

Passing the CARE Act would create increased awareness of U.S. child farmworkers and the hardships they endure.  Awareness will spark attention and mobilize action.  Local communities have just as much power in enforcing law as Congress has in passing it.  Community watch around farms can keep an eye out and report violations.  Rural school teachers can educate children and parents on the dangers and consequences of farm work to children’s development and future success.  Advocacy groups can educate their local communities on the realities of child farmworkers and the damaging conditions they experience, as well as influence and motivate others to take action.  Communities can be powerful entities in eradicating harsh child labor, but it begins with changing current law.  What are your thoughts?  Are there other ways you believe would be effective in creating awareness and protecting U.S. child farmworkers?

Cynthia Castaldo-Walsh is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group focused on gender-based conflict, non-violence and peacebuilding for conflict transformation, and sustainability for conflict resolution.
Share

Aug 17

America’s Hidden Secret

Do you know who is picking your fruits and vegetables?  I bet you wouldn’t think that children as young as 5 are working the farms and fields that supply your grocery stores.  I bet even more that you wouldn’t think the farms and fields I am referring to are in the United States.  The truth is that an estimated 500,000 children are working on farms throughout the U.S., not on small family farms, but on large commercial farms that supply grocery stores around the country.  What is perhaps most shocking is that this exploitive practice is often recognized as legal under U.S. labor laws—when children are less than 12 years old.

Child farmworkers are America’s hidden secret.  When we think, talk or hear about child laborers, we are most often referring to those in countries other than our own.  Investigative reports have revealed very young children working in hazardous conditions on fields across the country.  ABC News went undercover a few years ago at Adkin Blue Ribbon Packing Company, a blueberry farm in Michigan, revealing several children picking and lugging heavy buckets of blueberries on the commercial farm.  The farm was a supplier to Walmart and Kroger but the grocery chains severed ties once the use of child laborers was brought to the surface.  In June, the U.S. Department of Labor found child laborers between 6 and 11 years old working in three separate Washington strawberry farms.  These investigations, however, do not include the dozens of other children likely working the farms below 18 years of age since it is not illegal for children 12 years old and older to work unlimited numbers of hours in the commercial agricultural industry—a major loophole in U.S. labor laws and an extremely questionable moral issue.

The conditions that U.S. child farmworkers endure are dangerous and exhausting.  Unfortunately, the agricultural industry is often viewed as less dangerous than other industries for children to work in.  Due to this misperception, exemptions in the law, oversight and lack of enforcement of current law and low level public attention contribute to the continued exploitation of children on farms.  Child farmworkers are four times more likely to experience fatal injuries than all other forms of child labor.  Some of the common physical ailments child agricultural laborers experience include dizziness, nausea, rashes, vomiting, and headaches.  The children are repeatedly exposed to poisonous pesticides and harsh weather conditions, as well as regularly use sharp tools and heavy machinery.  Long-term consequences of pesticide exposure include cancer, brain damage, and memory/learning difficulties.  Work environments often do not provide access to sanitary facilities such as restrooms or a place to wash hands.  Access to safe and abundant drinking water is not always available.  Education is often not an option for these children, dropping out of school at a rate four times higher than the national average.  Children often pick and carry 200+ pounds of fruits and vegetables per day, working an average of 10-14 hours per day, 60+ hours per week, and 7 days per week.

The plight of U.S. child farmworkers is difficult to sum up in one blog post.  The legal, social, educational, physical, emotional and moral implications are many and complex.  The reasons why children get involved in agricultural labor vary, but many come from families living below the poverty line.  Some work because they are the only able-bodied in their families to do so and some work alongside their families.  The wage farmworkers are paid is not often by the hour, but by how many berries they pick—a wage that is often way below minimum wage and nearly impossible for families to live on.  Hence, children are often brought in by their parents to pick more berries with their efficient tiny fingers.  Human Rights Watch’s Deputy Director, Zama Coursen-Neff, stated that the U.S. is a developing country when it comes to their child agricultural labor.  I would agree.  The United States needs to do more to protect children from the extreme conditions they are forced to endure in the agriculture industry.  In my next blog post, I will discuss some of the current initiatives taking place to address this issue, suggest some best practices, and recommend changes to protect children farmworkers in the U.S.

Cynthia Castaldo-Walsh is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group focused on gender-based conflict, non-violence and peacebuilding for conflict transformation, and sustainability for conflict resolution.
Share

Aug 17

Pobreza: Desigualdad o Escasez?

Vivimos en un mundo con desigualdades económicas, divididos entre los países “desarrollados” y los en vía de desarrollo, el Norte y el Sur. Como ciudadanos del mundo, reaccionamos con estás desigualdades económicas de diferente manera.

Naciones desarrolladas y sus ciudadanos muchas veces sienten “la responsabilidad del hombre blanco” (para citar el poema de Kipling). Para Kipling, la responsabilidad del hombre blanco es la de cultivar y civilizar a otros que parecen ser menos tecnológica y culturalmente desarrollados. En efecto, el menos desarrollado es por consiguiente también pobre. Por consiguiente desde el tiempo de las colonias los países ricos e individuos (que son generalmente blancos) han ofrecido asistencia y ayuda, con buenas o malas intenciones detrás.

Sin embargo, lo que ahora percibimos como pobreza puede no ser tan dramático como lo entendemos. No es lo mismo que decir que la pobreza no existe, si no más bien que se debe de entender bajo otro aspecto. Se dice que ahora el desayuno promedio es mejor que cualquier desayuno que un rey medieval hubiera podido disfrutar. Hoy en día, la pobreza se ha vuelto un problema de desigualdad más que de escasez, un problema de justicia más que de recursos. Para dar un ejemplo concreto, hoy en día más gente muere de obesidad que de hambre (problemas de corazón son la primera causa de mortalidad, la mala alimentación es una gran causa. Ver aquí). Se estima que 1 billón de personas sufren de hambre crónica pero más de 2 billones sufren de obesidad.

Al parecer es la sobreproducción la que nos esta matando! Y la mala distribución de lo que producimos mata a unos otros cuantos (la reciente hambruna en África lo comprueba). Ante tan impresionantes estadísticas, no se puede más que inferir que tal vez la responsabilidad del hombre blanco (que es el que es más afectado por la obesidad) es de ayudarse a si mismo y no a “los otros”. El poema de Kipling debería de ser re-escrito y actualizado (y con un tono menos racista también).

El consume desigual no es únicamente un problema de la comida. Podríamos también comparar cómo usamos la energía, o como usamos los recursos (naturales y financieros), para ver que la solución tal vez radica en la distribución más que en la producción. Conociendo todo lo que podemos producir y todo lo que actualmente tenemos, hasta nos podríamos preguntar cuál es el verdadero significa de ser “desarrollado”. Es tan sólo ser más productivo y materialmente rico? Cuando el “hombre blanco” ofrece desarrollo, que deberíamos de ofrecer? La respuesta de estas preguntas es crucial si queremos ofrecer cualquier tipo de ayuda.

Hace un tiempo participé con una organización no gubernamental (Un techo para mi país) que construye casas para las familias de más bajo ingreso en  America Latina. Construimos una casa para un familia que vive en las afueras de la ciudad de México. La casa de la familia era pequeña y tenían muy poquitas cosas. Nuestro trabajo era construirles una casa nueva. Cuando la acabamos todos los voluntarios estábamos llenos de satisfacción (después de todo, habíamos construido un casa!).

Pero mientras celebrábamos, note que la familia igual y no estaba tan entusiasmada. Estaban muy agradecidos, sin duda, pero se daban cuenta que realmente no habíamos hecho nada para sacarlos de la pobreza en que vivían. La pobreza que ellos tenían era “trágica” para nosotros porque no tenían buenas prendas, tenis Adidas o buenos shampoo. Sin embargo la familia si tenía un techo, comida, y ropa. Nosotros, los voluntarios, sentíamos que los estábamos haciendo menos pobres construyéndoles una casa de madera (que con lluvia, viento igual y no es tan sustentable)pero la verdad es que la familia sólo se sentía pobre cuando se comparaba con nosotros. En efecto, la pobreza era un problema de desigualdad, no de escasez.

Por otro lado, lo que era realmente trágico era que la madre de la familia no podía criar a sus hijos porque tenía que trabajar 10 horas como sirvienta y no tenía suficiente paga para ahorrar dinero. Lo que era trágico era que el padre tenía que transportarse durante 2 horas para llegar al trabajo. Todos los días, tenía que caminar, andar en bici, y subirse al metro para llegar a su trabajo. Si llegaba tarde o no podía ir, no tenía ningún derecho de protestar, y corría siempre el riesgo de que lo despidieran.

Esta historia tiene una moraleja muy significativa. Muchas veces pensamos que existen muchos pobres porque no tienen todo lo que no tenemos, y por lo tanto tratamos de ayudarles. Pero el desarrollo es sobretodo un asunto de derechos humanos y de igualdad, de crear buenas oportunidades para dar mejor calidad de vida. Al final, lo que la familia de la ciudad de México necesitaba era mejores instituciones (que les ayudarán y defendieran), mejores servicios y más oportunidades. Hasta me da la impresión de que hubiera sido mas útil dar una clase de cívica para que entendieran sus derechos.

Siempre que nos enfrentamos a la pobreza (o debería de decir desigualdad), estamos impulsados a ayudar, muy seguido por la “piedad” o “culpa” que existen individuos que no poseen lo mismo que nosotros. Pero esto solo lleva a soluciones superficiales. A partir del momento en que se crea la separación entre “ellos” y “nosotros”, “nosotros” tratamos de ayudar según lo que “nosotros” pensamos que necesitan. De cierta manera, arbitrariamente decidimos construir una casa. Esta separación oculta (y hasta niega) el hecho de que la pobreza que vemos es también y sobretodo el producto de la riqueza. El “hombre blanco” es parte del problema, no sólo la solución. Muchas veces lo único que queremos hacer es deshacernos de la pobreza para no tener que culparnos y no sentirnos mal. No nos atrevemos a cambiar y reconocer que somos también culpables de la desigualdad, como productores y consumidores (Thomas Pogge desarrolla esta teoría en su libro). Hasta que no asimilemos estos comportamientos, no será posible encontrar soluciones sostenibles a la pobreza. Esta es la responsabilidad más importante del “hombre blanco”.

Share

Aug 15

Finding a New Use for Twitter in Egypt

Since Mubarak stepped down as president of Egypt, some of the bloggers and activists who devoted their online time to organizing revolution have turned to a new use for social media: economic aid.  20 prominent Egyptian bloggers—the same ones who previously blogged about overthrowing Mubarak—have joined together to create a Twitter fundraising campaign, Tweetback.  The goal of the program is to raise money to help Egyptian slum-dwellers, and so far it has been quite successful.

Egyptian slums are home to hundreds of thousands of people—possibly even millions— and the living conditions are poor and often unsafe.  As in slums everywhere, the buildings are precarious and overcrowded and the residents lack access to basic necessities like clean water.  In 2009 the Egyptian government attempted to help the slum residents by relocating people from some of the more dangerous slums, the ones built under or on crumbling cliff-edges, to nicer dwellings on the outskirts of Cairo.  While a good plan in theory, in execution the relocation proved troublesome.  The relocated families did have safer and nice living quarters, but unfortunately the new buildings were in the desert far away from the city center, leaving the new residents few job opportunities.  Some residents, mainly the fishermen, commute daily from the new apartments to the city, but lose much of their small income to transportation costs.  Others joined together to rent communal rooms in the city and visit their families only on weekends.  And many people still living in the city slums fear and resist being relocated, as they worry about being cut off from their source of income and insist that the government cannot move them out to the desert.

That is where the Tweetback initiative comes in.  Rather than working to relocate slum-dwellers, the members of the Tweetback initiative are raising money to improve the road network there.  The slums typically do not have paved roads, and they are often full of sewage and dirt and are extremely unsafe.  Because the roads are of such poor quality, ambulances and fire trucks cannot reach most of the slums, parents are afraid to send their children to school, and many people could not get to work.  So, the Tweetback founders hope that by improving the roads they will not only improve education and health, but reduce poverty.

The format of initiative itself is fairly simple.  Major multinational corporations like Coca-Cola and Mobinil are asked to donate to specific NGOs and development projects, and in return they are mentioned in tweets by the 20 Tweetback members.  It’s a win-win for both sides: the Tweetback founders have about a quarter of a million followers, collectively, so donors receive a lot of publicity, and the Tweetback initiative gets the money they need.  Tweetback hoped to raise $336,700, and in the first 10 days of operation raised $218,855—not a bad start!

Not everyone is enthusiastic about Tweetback, however.  The donations, while useful, are ultimately not sustainable, and some have argued that the very idea of using social media to raise money runs counter to the revolution, which was about empowering the people.  Further, some criticize the very idea of having corporations provide the donations, fearing that any charity work done is more about improving public image than genuine philanthropy.  The founders of Tweetback counter that they hope to make the donations sustainable by creating a phone line that will allow individuals and corporations to donate, and that many of the corporations who have already donated asked to remain anonymous.

So what do you think?  Will the Tweetback initiative prove to be sustainable, or will it flounder after a few months and leave people dependent on charity?  But I think either way we can all agree that building usable roads in the slums will go a long way in reducing poverty and improving access to healthcare and education.

Michelle Bovée is a SISGI Group Program and Research Intern focused on international affairs, economic development, and responsible tourism. To learn more about the SISGI Group visit www.sisgigroup.org

Share

Aug 12

Freedom of Speech or Insensitive Gibberish?

I am all for freedom of speech but not when it becomes abusive and offensive.  On Wednesday, the New York Post released their daily newspaper displaying a controversial image and relaying what many are calling a highly absurd and unreasonable message to the public.  The Post, in their attempt to metaphorically compare the recent highs and lows of the stock market, provide this headline: “Crazy stox like a hooker’s drawers…UP, DOWN, UP.”  Accompanying this headline is what appears to be a decades-old stock photo of a pin-up girl and a chart in the corner displaying the DOW’s daily ups and downs.  While many media folks were taking humorous stabs at the Post’s outrageous cover because of its out-dated use of the word “drawers” and photo from the 1940’s, as well as its nonsensical comparison between stock market chaos and prostitution, some are focusing on the deeper issues surrounding such irrational messages—insensitivity that fuels societal stigmatization of vulnerable young girls and women.

Rachel Lloyd, a leading anti-trafficking activist and founder of Girls Educational & Mentoring Services (GEMS) in NYC, as well as a survivor of sex trafficking herself, provided this response to the Post’s cover on her official Facebook page:

“Not surprised by the Post, after all its the Post but still….this is so offensive and frustrating. In group tonite, we processed a lot about the challenges of people’s perceptions of girls and women in the life and how hard it is to deal with so much stigma. This crap just feeds into those perceptions.”

She poses an important perspective on media messages and their influence on the perceptions of the general public.  Advocates have been working long and hard to educate the public about the realities of human trafficking, as well as prostitution—which carries a heavy negative stigma although many cases are that of sex trafficking—and challenge misperceptions.  While more and more individuals are beginning to understand the victimization aspect of those being trafficked or prostituted, highly publicized images and messages such as that provided by the Post can create setbacks.  In order for sexual exploitation to become non-existent and anti-trafficking efforts to be successful, people need to be given information that is correct and that eliminates the shame experienced by those “in the life,” a common term used to refer to organized commercial sexual exploitation and those trapped in it.

Insensitive messages can create re-victimization.  The term “hooker” is derogatory.  Used alternately with other terms such as “prostitute,” “whore,” and “slut,” it paints a very ugly and dirty image in the minds of many.  However, what is not often considered is what circumstances drove an individual to fall under this offensive label—an individual who has been abused emotionally, physically and sexually; one who has been coerced and victimized by those in positions of power; one who has experienced severe forms of harm and violence; one who has been stripped of dignity and basic human rights.  By discounting or minimizing these experiences and glorifying sexuality as a commercial commodity, one that is wrapped up in jokes and negative connotations, positive and sustainable developments in eliminating sexual exploitation will continue to be difficult.  It is important to be mindful of the impact messages and language can have on others.  We do not want to regress as a society nor re-victimize those in vulnerable positions.

If you find the Post’s cover offensive, GEM’s provides contact information to let it be known:

Phone: (212) 930-8000 or 930-8500
Email: Letters@nypost.com
Twitter: @NewYorkPost

Cynthia Castaldo-Walsh is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group focused on gender-based conflict, non-violence and peacebuilding for conflict transformation, and sustainability for conflict resolution.
Share

Aug 12

The Power of Students in Chile

Chile, one of the wealthiest countries in Latin America, has been going through its own array of protests and demonstrations these past few months.  In the past, students did not take a great degree of interest in their country’s political decisions, but the tide appears to be changing. Though the student population of Chile has recently taken a great degree of interest in many issues such as transportation and energy reform, they appear to be extremely adamant about education reform.  Chilean students have taken to conducting peaceful protests, like kiss-ins, dances, hunger strikes, as well as other protests of a more violent nature, to capture the government’s attention.   The goal is to have President Sebastian Piñera’s government take a greater interest in the education system, and bring about changes that will benefit students.

High school and college students have taken it upon themselves to demand a widespread education reform in their country.  Tens of thousands of students are asking the government to increase funding for public education.  For years, students have asked that middle and elementary school education be reformed, but recent sentiments are reaching higher education as well.  Students demand that the government make tuition for universities more affordable in order to make higher education accessible to everyone.  Since college tuition is so high in Chile, many students are unable to pursue a higher degree because they are unable to pay for school.

Issues with university education began under the dictatorship of General Pinochet in the 1980s, when he encouraged the formation of private universities.  The private universities became so pricy that students began to realize they were either unable to afford schooling or could not pay off the debts they had accrued.  Though General Pinochet’s regime has come to an end, education is still a major sticking point with parents and students in Chile.  Unfortunately, since the problem has yet to be solved, some protestors have become increasingly violent with their demonstrations.

On August 4th, thousands of students held a peaceful demonstration in Santiago, the capitol of Chile, which quickly became violent when masked protesters broke off from the crowd. The protestors began to loot shops, burn various buildings and cars, and clash with the police.  Though the violence was eventually quelled, the problems over education reform remain unsolved.  President Piñera recently put out a list of twenty-one reforms he was willing to put into action.  The reforms included: increased funding for education, more scholarships, teacher training sessions, aid for those struggling to pay their student loans, and many others.  However, student leaders rejected the reforms, stating that they did not solve the crux of the education reform issue, and continue to protest.

Though the education reform issue is still up in the air in Chile, it will be interesting to see what the outcome will be.  Unfortunately, many students right here in the United States can say that they sympathize with Chilean students.  Tuition prices for public and private universities go up on a yearly basis, and it can be extremely difficult for students to secure loans or scholarships to pay for school.  However, the interesting point to learn from the situation in Chile is that students are the ones who are primarily involved in their education reform.  This is a point that students right here in the U.S. should take into consideration.  Too many times it seems as though students are uninterested in issues that directly affect them, and simply complain about high tuition and book prices.  Education reform has been a major point in the U.S. these past few months, and students seem to be the least enthused about an issue that directly affects them.  Perhaps it is time for students to join in on the conversation, and take part in making decisions that affect their education for years to come.

Share