Message-ID: <32D14688.AF6@mind.net> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 18:38:00 +0000 From: "B. Diamond" <mailto:bdiamond@MIND.NET> Subject: Re: pushing development or... To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.--------------FB3ED12638 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> ---------------------- Original Message Follows mailto:----------------------EUNSteve@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I see. The indigenous choose capitalism freely, and need loans, and we make
> > them, and that cycle is forcing capitalism down their throats. Yes indeed.
>
> Steve, I really think that perhaps you're missing your calling--given your very artful
> ability to sidestep the issues and divert attention to your dogma, I think you'd make a
> wonderful politician. I asked you in an earlier post to please show me just one
> example of an indigenous culture group deciding to send a representative to the
> "modern world" and ask us for our help in "freeing them from bonds" of their
> traditional lifestyle. You failed to provide one because there isn't one. The historical
> record is quite clear that all contacts with indigenous societies were due solely to a
> search for "unclaimed" land and other natural resources. As the notions of the
> "Doctrine of Discovery and pursuant Rights of Conquest," and "Manifest Destiny"
> and other catchphrases of capitalist emperialism became less and less tolerable to the
> enlightened public, we substituted those means with others such as "spreading the
> word of God" and "Aid and Development Programs" which still share the same ends:
> to exploit and profit from natural resources. Military conquest is no longer socially
> acceptable, but economic and paradigmatic conquest are very much in vogue.
> Another issue you artfully sidestepped is that of swidden horticulture, which, if
> properly utilized for long-term public benefit instead of short-term private profit, has
> supported millions of people for thousands of years. You choose to ignore this
> because A) the capitalism that you advocate is epitomized by short-term profits
> regardless of long-term consequences, and B) it goes counter to the so-called
> deconstructionist argument that native peoples are "wasting" their resource base
> because they choose not to generate huge profits from it (in economic terms, their
> portection of their resource base would be called "inefficient, underutilized," etc.) We
> just can't understand/accept that they don't/won't liquidate their resource base and
> roll the profits over into mutual funds in order to garner the highest return.
>
> >
> > >The truth is much worse, Brett: as soon as they learn about
> > > capitalism they choose it. The only ones who prefer that they remain
> > > untouched by the market are Western intellectuals like you and their
> > > indigenous allies, usually indigenous intellectuals.
>
> Another myth of capitalism, "those that don't have it, want it." Yet 2/3 of the world's
> population have rejected capitalism Steve because many of them know that it is NOT
> sustainable. More than 1/2 of the world's population currently earn less that $750 per
> year. You of course beleive that's because they can't earn more, I would argue that
> perhaps they place more value on family and community than on owning a rolex and
> a BMW.
> The Kaibab Paiute of Northern Arizona were approached by Waste Management
> who wanted to build a toxic waste incinerator on their reservation. They offered to
> pay the Kaibob Paiute $100,000 just to "think about" their proposal, and they promised
> and annula income of over $1.5 million over the next 25 years. The Kaibob Paiute is a
> small reservation with only about 150 enrolled tribal members. They currently have a
> 60% rate of unemployment, an 70-80% rate of alcoholism, and the mean annual
> income is less than $5,200 per year. WM's proposal caused quite an uproar in their
> community, as there were those that argued that they could use the money to build
> schools and libraries and provide water and electricity to the many homes there that
> currently have neither. But after careful consideration, they rejected WM's proposal.
> Why? Because the realize that money does not compensate for the loss of culture and
> the dergradation of their natural world. Said one elder, "It was hard for us to turn
> away this money when we have so little. But we knew that in a hundred years the
> money and the company (WM) would be gone, and the earth and our integrity would
> be forever compromised." (must have been one of those damned "indigenous
> intellectuals" who got in the way of a solid economic opportunity, right Steve?)
>
> > The indigenous intellectuals who make your arguments are typically
> > Western-educated or influenced Marxists, devoted and dedicated, who are able
> > to gain influence and power for a while. In the case of the former Soviet
> > Union, for a long while. Then, eventually, the people realize what has
> > happened as a result of their influence: they will not allow them to rule any
> > longer, the Gorbachevs appear, and the people are allowed to choose again.
> >
> > And they choose the market and the consumer society. Sorry about that--I
> > truly am--but that's freedom, I guess.
>
> No Steve, many of them resist--you just can't understand why.
>
> > He is not , however, in complete disarray, as is your emperor of socialism,
> > who is in flight everywhere in the world, and completely discredited.
>
> Really? I thought Switzerland remained one of, if the not the most desirable place in
> the world to live.
>
> >The
> > Marxist story of The Ugly American is often good politics, and gets applause
> > and laughter and sometimes votes--but as soon as they can the people want to
> > come here, not to a socialist Utopia, or they want their own opportunities to
> > get jeans, and Hollywood movies, and burgers. Again, sorry about that, but
> > that's democracy.
>
> Methinks you confuse capitalism and democracy, no?
>
> > The world needs, I believe, to soften and humanize the market economy and
> > ethos without destroying its dynamism, and this means finding ways to build
> > into our society and the world many of the ideals that motivated socialism,
> > as well as finding ways from our own ethical and religious traditions to
> > infuse our lives and ways with compassion and caring.
>
> Well, finally we agree on something! I think that you're right, we must humanize the
> economy, but the founding principals of capitalism are to further the individual at the
> expense of the community. Externalities remain very profitable because they force
> the public to share in the costs, while the investors hoard the profits. I advocate what
> I'd call "socially responsible capitalism" wherien making profit is still a good thing,
> but that A) all costs (true costs) be born by the profiteer, and B) limits be placed on the
> marketplace as to how much can be made. Yet most capitalists reel at the very
> mention of the word "limit."
> As an anology as to why we need limits, I'd cite wildlife managment practices. I think
> most of us accept the idea that given today's population, and loss of natural habitat
> etc., hunted species like deer must have certain limitations placed on their availablity
> or the species will be hunted to extinction. If we simply let people go out and hunt as
> many as they wanted, anytime, anywhere, there would be serious, if not permanent
> damage. Therefore we carefully control how many are killed, where they are killed,
> what sex, etc. Most of us agree that this is a good thing. Yet when to start talkinng
> about placing controls on the marketplace, most people scream bloody murder. Yet it
> is the same thing. Capitalists argue that the market should decide the cost of goods
> and services, and that an unfettered market is the most efficient. Why should an
> enterprising young man who has trained himself in electronics not be "allowed" to
> produce and market his "hyperblaster" and make $100 million a year? For the same
> reason the the hunter who has honed his hunting skills, or is in the right place at the
> right time, or who is simply lucky, should not be allowed to go out and hunt as many
> deer as he wants, whenever he wants--there simply is not enough for everybody and
> skill, luck, or social status should have no bearing on the equal opportunity to survive.
>
> >
> > Believing that we can learn to do this by studying societies whose
> > institutions and technologies are radically and irrecoverably different from
> > ur own will only delay the process of rehabilitating our own institutions.
>
> Perhaps then this is what we should be telling indigeous cultures, that those
> institutions that are "radically & irrecoverably different" (as are "ours" to "theirs")
> will do more harm than good.
>
> >
> > I do not believe that we can learn from a cashless society how to become a
> > cashless society. I do not believe we can learn from an indigenous culture
> > how to deal with the sickeness of our own urban ghettos.
>
> You suggest that because I am not pro-capitalism, that I advocate a "cashless"society,
> this is not true. See above.
>
> > Your story is not playing well around the world. And it does not play well at
> > home.
>
> It's not a story Steve, it's fact. And sadly, it's not playing well around the
> world--you're right. In the next hundred years, we are predicted to lose about 20% of
> our current levels of floral and faunal species. In the next 100 years, we are predicted
> to lose 60-80% of the world's culture groups...all in the name of profit.
>
> "Ignorance provides no protection from
> the consequences of our actions."
>
> B. Diamond
--------------FB3ED12638 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
Received: from BASA14037.usaid.gov (basa14037.usaid.gov [165.13.2.24]) by one.mind.net (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id QAA2 466 for <mailto:bdiamond@mind.net>; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 16:30:30 -0800 Received: by BASA14037.usaid.gov; Mon, 6 Jan 97 19:29:05 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 97 19:26:39 -30000 Message-ID: <mailto:vines.NMY7+zUNomB@BASA14037.usaid.gov> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: <mailto:bdiamond@mind.net> From: <mailto:MAILER-DAEMON@usaid.gov> Subject: Undeliverable Message X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
To: "Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L" <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU> Cc: Subject: Re: pushing development--or pushing the status quo?
Message not delivered to recipients below. Press F1 for help with VNM error codes.
VNM3043: Madiou mailto:Yattara@YTH@BAMAKO
VNM3043 -- MAILBOX IS FULL
The message cannot be delivered because the recipient's mailbox contains the maximum number of messages, as set by the system administrator. The recipient must delete some messages before any other messages can be delivered.
The maximum message limit for a user's mailbox is 10,000. The default message limit is 1000 messages. Administrators can set message limits using the Mailbox Settings function available in the Manage User menu (MUSER).
When a user's mailbox reaches the limit, the user must delete some of the messages before the mailbox can accept any more incoming messages.
---------------------- Original Message Follows mailto:----------------------EUNSteve@aol.com wrote:
> I see. The indigenous choose capitalism freely, and need loans, and we make
> them, and that cycle is forcing capitalism down their throats. Yes indeed.
Steve, I really think that perhaps you're missing your calling--given your very artful ability to sidestep the issues and divert attention to your dogma, I think you'd make a wonderful politician. I asked you in an earlier post to please show me just one example of an indigenous culture group deciding to send a representative to the "modern world" and ask us for our help in "freeing them from bonds" of their traditional lifestyle. You failed to provide one because there isn't one. The historical record is quite clear that all contacts with indigenous societies were due solely to a search for "unclaimed" land and other natural resources. As the notions of the "Doctrine of Discovery and pursuant Rights of Conquest," and "Manifest Destiny" and other catchphrases of capitalist emperialism became less and less tolerable to the enlightened public, we substituted those means with others such as "spreading the word of God" and "Aid and Development Programs" which still share the same ends: to exploit and profit from natural resources. Military conquest is no longer socially acceptable, but economic and paradigmatic conquest are very much in vogue. Another issue you artfully sidestepped is that of swidden horticulture, which, if properly utilized for long-term public benefit instead of short-term private profit, has supported millions of people for thousands of years. You choose to ignore this because A) the capitalism that you advocate is epitomized by short-term profits regardless of long-term consequences, and B) it goes counter to the so-called deconstructionist argument that native peoples are "wasting" their resource base because they choose not to generate huge profits from it (in economic terms, their portection of their resource base would be called "inefficient, underutilized," etc.) We just can't understand/accept that they don't/won't liquidate their resource base and roll the profits over into mutual funds in order to garner the highest return.
>
> >The truth is much worse, Brett: as soon as they learn about
> > capitalism they choose it. The only ones who prefer that they remain
> > untouched by the market are Western intellectuals like you and their
> > indigenous allies, usually indigenous intellectuals.
Another myth of capitalism, "those that don't have it, want it." Yet 2/3 of the world's population have rejected capitalism Steve because many of them know that it is NOT sustainable. More than 1/2 of the world's population currently earn less that $750 per year. You of course beleive that's because they can't earn more, I would argue that perhaps they place more value on family and community than on owning a rolex and a BMW. The Kaibab Paiute of Northern Arizona were approached by Waste Management who wanted to build a toxic waste incinerator on their reservation. They offered to pay the Kaibob Paiute $100,000 just to "think about" their proposal, and they promised and annula income of over $1.5 million over the next 25 years. The Kaibob Paiute is a small reservation with only about 150 enrolled tribal members. They currently have a 60% rate of unemployment, an 70-80% rate of alcoholism, and the mean annual income is less than $5,200 per year. WM's proposal caused quite an uproar in their community, as there were those that argued that they could use the money to build schools and libraries and provide water and electricity to the many homes there that currently have neither. But after careful consideration, they rejected WM's proposal. Why? Because the realize that money does not compensate for the loss of culture and the dergradation of their natural world. Said one elder, "It was hard for us to turn away this money when we have so little. But we knew that in a hundred years the money and the company (WM) would be gone, and the earth and our integrity would be forever compromised." (must have been one of those damned "indigenous intellectuals" who got in the way of a solid economic opportunity, right Steve?)
> The indigenous intellectuals who make your arguments are typically
> Western-educated or influenced Marxists, devoted and dedicated, who are able
> to gain influence and power for a while. In the case of the former Soviet
> Union, for a long while. Then, eventually, the people realize what has
> happened as a result of their influence: they will not allow them to rule any
> longer, the Gorbachevs appear, and the people are allowed to choose again.
>
> And they choose the market and the consumer society. Sorry about that--I
> truly am--but that's freedom, I guess.
No Steve, many of them resist--you just can't understand why.
> He is not , however, in complete disarray, as is your emperor of socialism,
> who is in flight everywhere in the world, and completely discredited.
Really? I thought Switzerland remained one of, if the not the most desirable place in the world to live.
>The
> Marxist story of The Ugly American is often good politics, and gets applause
> and laughter and sometimes votes--but as soon as they can the people want to
> come here, not to a socialist Utopia, or they want their own opportunities to
> get jeans, and Hollywood movies, and burgers. Again, sorry about that, but
> that's democracy.
Methinks you confuse capitalism and democracy, no?
> The world needs, I believe, to soften and humanize the market economy and
> ethos without destroying its dynamism, and this means finding ways to build
> into our society and the world many of the ideals that motivated socialism,
> as well as finding ways from our own ethical and religious traditions to
> infuse our lives and ways with compassion and caring.
Well, finally we agree on something! I think that you're right, we must humanize the economy, but the founding principals of capitalism are to further the individual at the expense of the community. Externalities remain very profitable because they force the public to share in the costs, while the investors hoard the profits. I advocate what I'd call "socially responsible capitalism" wherien making profit is still a good thing, but that A) all costs (true costs) be born by the profiteer, and B) limits be placed on the marketplace as to how much can be made. Yet most capitalists reel at the very mention of the word "limit." As an anology as to why we need limits, I'd cite wildlife managment practices. I think most of us accept the idea that given today's population, and loss of natural habitat etc., hunted species like deer must have certain limitations placed on their availablity or the species will be hunted to extinction. If we simply let people go out and hunt as many as they wanted, anytime, anywhere, there would be serious, if not permanent damage. Therefore we carefully control how many are killed, where they are killed, what sex, etc. Most of us agree that this is a good thing. Yet when to start talkinng about placing controls on the marketplace, most people scream bloody murder. Yet it is the same thing. Capitalists argue that the market should decide the cost of goods and services, and that an unfettered market is the most efficient. Why should an enterprising young man who has trained himself in electronics not be "allowed" to produce and market his "hyperblaster" and make $100 million a year? For the same reason the the hunter who has honed his hunting skills, or is in the right place at the right time, or who is simply lucky, should not be allowed to go out and hunt as many deer as he wants, whenever he wants--there simply is not enough for everybody and skill, luck, or social status should have no bearing on the equal opportunity to survive.
>
> Believing that we can learn to do this by studying societies whose
> institutions and technologies are radically and irrecoverably different from
> ur own will only delay the process of rehabilitating our own institutions.
Perhaps then this is what we should be telling indigeous cultures, that those institutions that are "radically & irrecoverably different" (as are "ours" to "theirs") will do more harm than good.
>
> I do not believe that we can learn from a cashless society how to become a
> cashless society. I do not believe we can learn from an indigenous culture
> how to deal with the sickeness of our own urban ghettos.
You suggest that because I am not pro-capitalism, that I advocate a "cashless"society, this is not true. See above.
> Your story is not playing well around the world. And it does not play well at
> home.
It's not a story Steve, it's fact. And sadly, it's not playing well around the world--you're right. In the next hundred years, we are predicted to lose about 20% of our current levels of floral and faunal species. In the next 100 years, we are predicted to lose 60-80% of the world's culture groups...all in the name of profit.
"Ignorance provides no protection from the consequences of our actions."
B. Diamond
--------------FB3ED12638--