A robber baron is a corporate official (or I would add entity) that uses exploitation of workers (and I would add resources) to make their money. The term was coined in 1934 by Matthew Josephson to describe the rich men of his time. Over the years they have had many names ("captains of industry") but we call them "billionaires" or the "private sector" today. The purpose of this column is to highlight the robber barons of yesteryear and those of today and what they have done to earn that title. We will discuss the effects these entities have had on the public as well.
The Gilded Age is where the term robber baron came from and in that time there were many who were considered to fit the definition: Andrew Carnegie (Carnegie Steel), James J. Hill (Great Northern Railroad), Henry Ford (in later years), John D. Rockefeller (Standard Oil), J.P. Morgan (Wall Street/Finance) etc were considered by many to fit the bill by exploiting workers and conditions for the purpose of profit. However I don't know enough about each person to say whether they were as terrible as some say they were or not. I do know that those who don't view them as robber barons have stated that the REAL robber barons where men who used government assistance to make their empires while these men did not. You see in some circles the real robber barons are called "political entrepreneurs" and these men are called "market entrepreneurs" the difference being government assistance. So I don't know how to properly judge their character.
I do know that they helped build America and changed industry in this nation in general, although I am unsure whether that was good or not. Depending of where you sit on the topic of industry and its effects on society, there are obvious positive effects such as cars, computers, mass transportation, etc but there are it's downsides too if one believes in global warming that could be one, the ruthless culture it created where people began attempting to imitate their success by less than respectable or responsible means among others. But this was the past hell some of it over 100 years old, what about today? Well today, with globalization things are undoubtedly much worse than any one of those men ever made it. Today there are sweatshops, government corruption and violence in every corner of the globe while chasing the almighty dollar.
If the real robber barons used government assistance, then we have almost nothing but robber barons today. Just about every corporation in the U.S. is subsidized by the government. This means the government gives them tax deductions or cash payments to keep them up and running. This is supposed to benefit both the corporation and the people of the community, whom the corporation hire in their shops and factories. Sounds fair enough right? Where does the "robber" come in? It seems equal, that is until you realize that government funds come from that same community. See the community pays taxes, the taxes are then sent to the corporation to pay rent on its private land so it can operate. So it seems that you pay your job to be there. In many cases, like recently, there are subsidies going to corporations that send jobs overseas. The corporation complains about government regulations (take government's money play by their rules right?) and they complain about unions (yet their subsidized by your tax dollars) so they blackmail the government to make things even better for them. That means more tax breaks, more subsidies, government help busting up unions, and lobbying to decrease funds for competition (here in Detroit the auto industry kept us from having a subway system similar to that of Chicago or New York). This is that pesky political entrepreneurship they speak of.
But it is not always government assistance, sometimes it is lack of government that makes a robber baron. I mentioned before about getting rid of unions and keeping corporations happy with tax cuts and subsidies but nothing makes them happier than cutting wages and avoiding labor laws. NAFTA was signed (under Bill Clinton) made trade with Canada and Mexico easier and in my opinion was the beginning of globalization. Corporations could now fold plants in Chicago and move them to Mexico or Canada where they can pay the workers much less and didn't have to deal with labor unions or labor laws. This led to blackmail of state and local governments to help corporations even more because now the citizens in these situations would have to surrender benefits, wages, family time, and in some cases the opportunity for legal actions (suing for injury etc) to keep their jobs. When a country has government mandated labor unions and labor laws (like the state of Michigan) it is difficult to compete against a country without those benefits. This is what I mean by the lack of government.
The lack of government also leads to sweatshop labor. Sweatshop labor is defined by The U.S. Dept of Labor as a factory or shop that violates 2 or more labor laws. Of course that definition only fits in America, it means nothing in say India or China where there are sweatshops. Sweatshops are good for business, low running costs, high production, lower cost for consumers, and better profit margins. Its a victory for all sides except the workers in the plant. In my research I have found about 7 businesses that use sweatshop labor: Target, K-Mart, Nike, Sears, Kohl's, J.C. Penny and of course Wal-Mart. The strange thing is Target, K-Mart and Wal-Mart are competitors who sell very similar products and looking at it from their perspective if they raise their costs by not using slave..I mean sweatshop labor then they would have to raise prices and could potentially lose business. Isn't that sad? Market share is more important than people. Well in any event these countries are to blame for the poor working conditions because their governments allow it. But it isn't all that foreign governments have allowed, some have allowed nearly complete destruction of their environment for corporate benefit.
The environment and the people of a nation mean nothing to corporations. Nigeria, the oil rich west African nation has been destroyed by the oil industry. The air, land, and water have all been polluted by Mobil Exxon (America's #1 oil corporation) and their oil drilling and occasional (but not uncommon) spilling. Here in the U.S. over the summer of 2010 we suffered an oil spill in the gulf (courtesy of British Petroleum's carelessness). The oil stretched for miles and polluted everything in its path. The citizens of the polluted areas were furious and rightfully so. However Nigeria had been having oil spills for 50 years prior to our one oil spill in 2010. Why is this happening? Well because Mobil Exxon has Nigeria's government in their pocket and although their citizens are furious too, there is nothing they can do about it. Of course one can never forget the conflict diamonds of Sierra Leone, Angola and the Congo where DeBeers made millions, excuse me, billions off of warlords mutiliating the people of those nations. Coca-Cola or "killer coke" as it is now being called, have been charged with sending paramilitary groups to kill union workers in Columbia, they have also been sued by citizens in India for stealing and polluting their water!
So when I think of robber barons or corporations who make money off exploitation, I don't think of Standard Oil or Carnegie Steel. I think of Nike, Mobil Exxon, GM and all the other 937 political gangsters that took bailout money and is not because I think the world of Carnagie and Rockefeller, it is because whatever they did during their time has to pale in comparison to what corporations do today. Corporations today don't care about the difference between market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs only people looking to protect capitalism do. All they care about is money, and they will bribe the U.S. government, or the Nigerian government. They will blackmail, build sweatshops, and anything else that stands in their way because the bottom line is their bottom line.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Rappers: Faking It Til They're Making It
The hip hop culture is one often filled the message of debauchery, genocide, hedonism, and materialism. I love the culture and the music but that is the truth of the matter unfortunately. In any good rap song is one of the major components. It is either a song about sex, killing, hustling or money (not all but I'm talking commercial hip-hop right now). Right now I wish to discuss the materialism in hip-hop culture, simply because I feel as though it is the most widespread and the most visible. It is rather easy to ignore the imaginary murders rappers commit simply because the average gangsta rapper spits as though they are Jason Vorhees or Michael Myers and we know that not to be true. The sexual appetites of artists are personal and we only know very small amounts about that besides this is not a gossip column. Materialism is flooded in the media already, we know this, the Fortune 500 lists Jay-Z, Sean "sometime P-Diddy other times Puffy" Combs made or what have you. We see money not just in hip-hop but in other forms of media, and because it has seeped into the minds of the public at large it has also flooded the airwaves. Rappers have made it their business to let the world know of their success or coming success, but there are times where the rappers have unfortunately decided to fake said success. And that is the topic we are going to discuss today. There are far too many examples of artists going too far to push an image of success but I have chosen only three for this column because these are the most pervasive in the industry. Borrowing jewelry, cars and designer clothing for video shoots is commonplace, very commonplace and the most important when discussing the false lifestyle that artists portray in videos to the youth.
Getting busted with jewelry that doesn't belong to was once a big deal in hip-hop. It was a "dissable" offense (meaning you got dissed for wearing borrowed or fake jewelry) and perhaps it still is. One of my favorite artists Jadakiss got caught with jewelry that wasnt his. He borrowed the jewelry for a video he was doing with Mariah Carey back in 2004-2005. Now as I mentioned this is commonplace so there really isn't an issue of Jada being the broke ass rapper who can't afford the fly bling he wants to use for a video, alot of people (labels) do it. Jadakiss is not really a rapper that wears a lot of jewelry anyway, but it was $400,000 worth of jewelry, that is a pretty steep price but the image attached to having it is worth way more to people in the industry. Kiss was busted and he did get dissed by 50 Cent for it, but was it really worth it? Is the need to portray this image that necessary? For alot of rappers the answer is a resounding..yes.
Wearing jewelry that is not yours is one thing but wearing designer clothes the manufacturer doesn't even know exists is another. Rapper Rick Ross was busted sporting fake Louis Vuitton shades on the cover of XXL magazine. How did he get busted? Well once Ross wore those false shades on the cover it garnered a hell of alot of attention and requests for the shades came pouring into Louis Vuitton. Upon a quick search it was found that those sunglasses are not made by LV and that those particular frames were fake. A spokesperson from the company had this to say:
"...the sunglasses Mr. Ross is wearing were not made by Louis Vuitton and, in fact, are counterfeit. Louis Vuitton did not grant permission to Mr. Ross or to whoever did make the sunglasses to use our trademarks. The second is that no affiliation, sponsorship or association exists between Rick Ross or XXL and Louis Vuitton. The third is that counterfeiting is illegal."
To the rapper's defense a customizer nicknamed "The Sunglasses Pimp" stated he customized Ross' LV Millionaire shades and that tricking out sunglasses is the same as tricking out a car. I say that may be true but Ross was attempting to portray an image and that image is the "boss" character he has decided to play in the hip-hop game. Why do I say that? Well because an aforementioned "boss" Jay-Z debuted some authentic Louis Vuitton Millionaire shades on a different XXL magazine cover. Why the falsehood? Perhaps he wanted for people to believe he was on Jay-Z's level as far as money and power, unfortunately that turned out not to be the case a very embarrassing lesson learned.
We have just discessed rappers borrowing jewels for video shoots, wearing borrowed or fake clothing for photo shoots and those things are small compared to the most gaudy objects such as luxury cars. Neo-rap princess Nicki Minaj was driving a hot-pink Lamborghini for one of her music videos, the problem was the car wasn't hers and she damaged it by driving off-road.Strangely enough the damage she caused to the car was far more than it cost for her to rent the vehicle in the first place. Once again we see artists attempting to push an image of success and in doing so instead showed their lack thereof. To Nicki's defense it was her first solo video and maybe she didn't have the practice handling other people's property that some other artists do. What made me think of this case was recently, I saw a woman with a hot-pink corvette with the word "Barbie" (which is one of Nicki's gimmicks, even if it was ripped off from Lil Kim). And that got me to thinking about the cultural impact stunts like this have on people. Now it is impossible for me to know that the random woman painted her car pink because of Nicki Minaj, but I can say I never saw a hot-pink sports car until now and if I am wrong in saying one has something to do with the other so be it, but its a strong correlation.
Throughout the hip-hop industry we are blasted with imagery. Images of poverty stricken ghettoes, images of flashy husters, images of wild sex, images of lavish lifestyles including luxury cars and million dollar homes and the wise person realizes just how much of a facade most of it really is. Granted an argument can be made that the artist's record label is the ones paying for the fake jewelry and rented cars but some responsibility needs to be taken by the artists who indulge. I am sure it feels good to be able to drive a lambourgini but like my mama would say "if you ain't got lambourgini money keeps your ass out of it", amazing how simple a message that is right? However it is sad that the label and the artist feel that they need to portray these images of success and wealth to make an artist successful and wealthy. One can only hope that one day we can move past the small minded materialism we have as a nation, maybe then hip-hop can move past it too.
Getting busted with jewelry that doesn't belong to was once a big deal in hip-hop. It was a "dissable" offense (meaning you got dissed for wearing borrowed or fake jewelry) and perhaps it still is. One of my favorite artists Jadakiss got caught with jewelry that wasnt his. He borrowed the jewelry for a video he was doing with Mariah Carey back in 2004-2005. Now as I mentioned this is commonplace so there really isn't an issue of Jada being the broke ass rapper who can't afford the fly bling he wants to use for a video, alot of people (labels) do it. Jadakiss is not really a rapper that wears a lot of jewelry anyway, but it was $400,000 worth of jewelry, that is a pretty steep price but the image attached to having it is worth way more to people in the industry. Kiss was busted and he did get dissed by 50 Cent for it, but was it really worth it? Is the need to portray this image that necessary? For alot of rappers the answer is a resounding..yes.
Wearing jewelry that is not yours is one thing but wearing designer clothes the manufacturer doesn't even know exists is another. Rapper Rick Ross was busted sporting fake Louis Vuitton shades on the cover of XXL magazine. How did he get busted? Well once Ross wore those false shades on the cover it garnered a hell of alot of attention and requests for the shades came pouring into Louis Vuitton. Upon a quick search it was found that those sunglasses are not made by LV and that those particular frames were fake. A spokesperson from the company had this to say:
"...the sunglasses Mr. Ross is wearing were not made by Louis Vuitton and, in fact, are counterfeit. Louis Vuitton did not grant permission to Mr. Ross or to whoever did make the sunglasses to use our trademarks. The second is that no affiliation, sponsorship or association exists between Rick Ross or XXL and Louis Vuitton. The third is that counterfeiting is illegal."
To the rapper's defense a customizer nicknamed "The Sunglasses Pimp" stated he customized Ross' LV Millionaire shades and that tricking out sunglasses is the same as tricking out a car. I say that may be true but Ross was attempting to portray an image and that image is the "boss" character he has decided to play in the hip-hop game. Why do I say that? Well because an aforementioned "boss" Jay-Z debuted some authentic Louis Vuitton Millionaire shades on a different XXL magazine cover. Why the falsehood? Perhaps he wanted for people to believe he was on Jay-Z's level as far as money and power, unfortunately that turned out not to be the case a very embarrassing lesson learned.
We have just discessed rappers borrowing jewels for video shoots, wearing borrowed or fake clothing for photo shoots and those things are small compared to the most gaudy objects such as luxury cars. Neo-rap princess Nicki Minaj was driving a hot-pink Lamborghini for one of her music videos, the problem was the car wasn't hers and she damaged it by driving off-road.Strangely enough the damage she caused to the car was far more than it cost for her to rent the vehicle in the first place. Once again we see artists attempting to push an image of success and in doing so instead showed their lack thereof. To Nicki's defense it was her first solo video and maybe she didn't have the practice handling other people's property that some other artists do. What made me think of this case was recently, I saw a woman with a hot-pink corvette with the word "Barbie" (which is one of Nicki's gimmicks, even if it was ripped off from Lil Kim). And that got me to thinking about the cultural impact stunts like this have on people. Now it is impossible for me to know that the random woman painted her car pink because of Nicki Minaj, but I can say I never saw a hot-pink sports car until now and if I am wrong in saying one has something to do with the other so be it, but its a strong correlation.
Throughout the hip-hop industry we are blasted with imagery. Images of poverty stricken ghettoes, images of flashy husters, images of wild sex, images of lavish lifestyles including luxury cars and million dollar homes and the wise person realizes just how much of a facade most of it really is. Granted an argument can be made that the artist's record label is the ones paying for the fake jewelry and rented cars but some responsibility needs to be taken by the artists who indulge. I am sure it feels good to be able to drive a lambourgini but like my mama would say "if you ain't got lambourgini money keeps your ass out of it", amazing how simple a message that is right? However it is sad that the label and the artist feel that they need to portray these images of success and wealth to make an artist successful and wealthy. One can only hope that one day we can move past the small minded materialism we have as a nation, maybe then hip-hop can move past it too.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
The Three Classes of Intellects
Nicolo Machiavelli in his oft-followed and imitated work The Prince, stated that there were three classes of intellects. Using those three classes we can tell what kind of thinker a person is and in using that we can come to an understanding of whether the person speaking or writing is worth listening to.
The Three Classes of Intellects are:
"One which comprehends by itself.
The other appreciates, what another comprehends.
And the last doesn't comprehend by itself nor by the showing of others."
The first is said to be the best and rightfully so. If one can truly read or listen and understand without further explanation should he not be considered an intellectual? Now I believe that in order to fully understand many ideas such deep theories stemming from the scientific, mathematic or otherwise, it requires much study and much explanation. So then this first class is not saying that one has to pick up on an ideology or theory and understand it with perfection in a short time but that one dedicates themselves to understanding it on their own to the point where they can comprehend the concept on their own because they are familiar with it.
One such example of this first class would be a college professor. A professor that lectures on a topic, has done the necessary research on the topic, they have become fluid on the topic, the have mastered it. Now there are "student-professors" meaning professors who don't have the paper diploma necessary to prove their mastery but if they are given an opportunity to teach then surely they have some mastery over the information.
The first class, as far as I am concerned, is the most interesting. The reason being it is the class that all people strive, it is their plan to master a position, a craft and be considered a leader in that field. That term, "leader" is exactly what Machiavelli is writing about. He is writing a manual on leadership and what an effective leader needs. Surely an effective leader needs to be able to comprehend situations and make the best decisions possible on their own. They need to have an intellect on a higher plane so than those they lead or they cannot truly call themselves a leader. A leader that has mastery over information and can understand and problem-solve on their own will eventually gain the favor of many followers, in the same way all the good professors have full classes.
The second class is considered by Machiavelli to be only "good". I consider it a useful skill. Knowing that you cannot fully comprehend a situation or understand a problem is useful because it doesn't create a false sense of self. This is one thing people do all the time as well. We quote people (as I am doing with Machiavelli) because we understand that they know more than we do. We come to grips with our own limitations but we know who does have the knowledge that is needed to solve this problem.
Have you ever encountered an issue and needed to ask someone else for clarification? Of course you have and there is intelligence in not knowing how to solve an issue because you do know who to turn to.
I liken this class to being an understudy or a tutor to keep with the academic theme. A tutor has some of the answers and can help a lot if your low on understanding but they know their weaknesses. If an issue arises where they become perplexed they know where to go (and I don't mean simply going to the professor) they could be familiar with a higher level writer or thinker they can look to for advice or clarification. Remember many tutors are still students themselves but they have the experience to point you in the right direction. A tutor or an understudy definitely appreciates one who has mastery on a subject.
Going back to Machiavelli's book which, like I mentioned before, is on leadership, leaders also need to have an understanding of their own limitations. A leader needs to have full control over their flaws as they do their strengths, it is a requirement. If you have followers or employees that need to understand when they are over their heads on an issue and need to contact someone with more experience, you should be able to do that as well. So Machiavelli is perhaps saying that there is strength in understanding your own weaknesses.
The last class of intellect is said to be "useless" by Machiavelli and I fully agree. These are possibly the stubborn, prideful folks who know they don't have the knowledge but refuse to seek someone who does out of their own selfishness but it is not just those people.
As the class is written it looks to say that it is a person that cannot grasp the answers on their own or with the help of others. And that is somewhat true, "by the showing of others" is saying that they have been shown, the answers have been explained yet they still cannot grasp it. This happens a lot too. In academia we all face a course where no matter how simplistic it is, no matter the tutors, the amount of time studying we just don't get it (for me it was Geology..ugh).
What do you do then? While you have noticed your own weakness and have asked for help and after the help you still don't understand frustration usually kicks in. The more frustrated you become the more you would want to quit and just do something else. However I would say, that if you don't quit and you keep trying then you don't belong in this class after all. Think about it you are able to appreciate what another knows still, even if you still can't comprehend it yourself.
I have discussed here Machiavelli's three classes of intellects as written in his book The Prince. The first class, the "excellent" class are of masters and strong leaders who have the knowledge and problem-solving skills within themselves necessary to be effective. The second class, the "good/useful" class are the ones who may not hold full mastery but have a good handle on it and know where to find helpful information when the problem is beyond their skill set. The final, "useless", class are a mixture of the stubborn, selfish and the somewhat hapless. They can't get it. No matter how many times they try they can't get a handle on it. However by continuously trying they perhaps can jump to the second class.
Of course all these classes would vary depending on the field. The aforementioned professor is a master of his field, not all fields. A tutor may only be useful for a particular course. So perhaps in reality we are all apart of all three classes at some point in time because we are fallible and we can't possibly know everything, even those with high levels of knowledge (mastery) can't know it all. But when it comes to the concept of leadership the first two classes are the best and that's what Machiavelli was putting out there.
The Three Classes of Intellects are:
"One which comprehends by itself.
The other appreciates, what another comprehends.
And the last doesn't comprehend by itself nor by the showing of others."
The first is said to be the best and rightfully so. If one can truly read or listen and understand without further explanation should he not be considered an intellectual? Now I believe that in order to fully understand many ideas such deep theories stemming from the scientific, mathematic or otherwise, it requires much study and much explanation. So then this first class is not saying that one has to pick up on an ideology or theory and understand it with perfection in a short time but that one dedicates themselves to understanding it on their own to the point where they can comprehend the concept on their own because they are familiar with it.
One such example of this first class would be a college professor. A professor that lectures on a topic, has done the necessary research on the topic, they have become fluid on the topic, the have mastered it. Now there are "student-professors" meaning professors who don't have the paper diploma necessary to prove their mastery but if they are given an opportunity to teach then surely they have some mastery over the information.
The first class, as far as I am concerned, is the most interesting. The reason being it is the class that all people strive, it is their plan to master a position, a craft and be considered a leader in that field. That term, "leader" is exactly what Machiavelli is writing about. He is writing a manual on leadership and what an effective leader needs. Surely an effective leader needs to be able to comprehend situations and make the best decisions possible on their own. They need to have an intellect on a higher plane so than those they lead or they cannot truly call themselves a leader. A leader that has mastery over information and can understand and problem-solve on their own will eventually gain the favor of many followers, in the same way all the good professors have full classes.
The second class is considered by Machiavelli to be only "good". I consider it a useful skill. Knowing that you cannot fully comprehend a situation or understand a problem is useful because it doesn't create a false sense of self. This is one thing people do all the time as well. We quote people (as I am doing with Machiavelli) because we understand that they know more than we do. We come to grips with our own limitations but we know who does have the knowledge that is needed to solve this problem.
Have you ever encountered an issue and needed to ask someone else for clarification? Of course you have and there is intelligence in not knowing how to solve an issue because you do know who to turn to.
I liken this class to being an understudy or a tutor to keep with the academic theme. A tutor has some of the answers and can help a lot if your low on understanding but they know their weaknesses. If an issue arises where they become perplexed they know where to go (and I don't mean simply going to the professor) they could be familiar with a higher level writer or thinker they can look to for advice or clarification. Remember many tutors are still students themselves but they have the experience to point you in the right direction. A tutor or an understudy definitely appreciates one who has mastery on a subject.
Going back to Machiavelli's book which, like I mentioned before, is on leadership, leaders also need to have an understanding of their own limitations. A leader needs to have full control over their flaws as they do their strengths, it is a requirement. If you have followers or employees that need to understand when they are over their heads on an issue and need to contact someone with more experience, you should be able to do that as well. So Machiavelli is perhaps saying that there is strength in understanding your own weaknesses.
The last class of intellect is said to be "useless" by Machiavelli and I fully agree. These are possibly the stubborn, prideful folks who know they don't have the knowledge but refuse to seek someone who does out of their own selfishness but it is not just those people.
As the class is written it looks to say that it is a person that cannot grasp the answers on their own or with the help of others. And that is somewhat true, "by the showing of others" is saying that they have been shown, the answers have been explained yet they still cannot grasp it. This happens a lot too. In academia we all face a course where no matter how simplistic it is, no matter the tutors, the amount of time studying we just don't get it (for me it was Geology..ugh).
What do you do then? While you have noticed your own weakness and have asked for help and after the help you still don't understand frustration usually kicks in. The more frustrated you become the more you would want to quit and just do something else. However I would say, that if you don't quit and you keep trying then you don't belong in this class after all. Think about it you are able to appreciate what another knows still, even if you still can't comprehend it yourself.
I have discussed here Machiavelli's three classes of intellects as written in his book The Prince. The first class, the "excellent" class are of masters and strong leaders who have the knowledge and problem-solving skills within themselves necessary to be effective. The second class, the "good/useful" class are the ones who may not hold full mastery but have a good handle on it and know where to find helpful information when the problem is beyond their skill set. The final, "useless", class are a mixture of the stubborn, selfish and the somewhat hapless. They can't get it. No matter how many times they try they can't get a handle on it. However by continuously trying they perhaps can jump to the second class.
Of course all these classes would vary depending on the field. The aforementioned professor is a master of his field, not all fields. A tutor may only be useful for a particular course. So perhaps in reality we are all apart of all three classes at some point in time because we are fallible and we can't possibly know everything, even those with high levels of knowledge (mastery) can't know it all. But when it comes to the concept of leadership the first two classes are the best and that's what Machiavelli was putting out there.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Cultural Anthropology and Counter Insurgency...The Vietnam War and The Iraqi/Afghani Wars
Gerald Hickey was a anthropology graduate student from the University of Chicago visiting Vietnam during the war. Hired by the RAND corporation and The U.S. military to study the Vietnamese and help them win the war.
Hickey wrote programs that the military rejected because they didn't like the results. Hickey found in his research that the villagers just wanted physical & economic security from the government, he found that overwhelming force [the military's favorite tactic] was counterproductive in this type of battle. Force creates martyrs, shows the enemy your overly brutal, and all that leads to increased recruitment for insurgent forces.
He stated that "Vietnam is a political war, and should be fought in the political arena." He found people [Montagnards or "highlanders"] who were willing to assist the U.S. in the war [despite their opposition the S. Vietnamese government]. He stated the Vietnamese custom of "accommodation" should be used to negotiate...the military said no they believed it "giving in or surrendering".
In the end the U.S. lost anyway, Hickey was ejected from the RAND Corporation and from the academia due to ethical conflicts. The military has a history of considering cultural anthropology as a "nuts n' huts" ideology and useless in real life battle. Ethnocentrism made a fool of this nation before, and from the looks of things it will again.
In 1984 Capsar Weinberger [Secretary of Defense under Pres. Reagan] created the 6 principles to avoid another Vietnam and those principles are:
(1) The United States should not commit forces to combat overseas unless the particular engagement or occasion is deemed vital to our national interest or that of our allies.
(2) If we decide it is necessary to put combat troops into a given situation, we should do so wholeheartedly, and with the clear intention of winning. If we are unwilling to commit the forces or resources necessary to achieve our objectives, we should not commit them at all. 
(3) If we do decide to commit forces to combat overseas, we should have clearly defined political and military objectives.
(4) The relationship between our objectives and the forces we have committed—their size, composition and disposition—must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
(5) Before the U.S. commits forces abroad, there must be some reasonable assurance we will have the support of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress.
(6) The commitment of U.S. forces to combat should be a last resort.
Those plans were resurrected by Colin Powell in 1994 but abandoned by the end of Clinton's presidency.
There is and seeming always have been a severe lack of cultural understanding in the National. Security establishment. It puts us all in danger, but it puts those that fight these wars in the most danger because they are the ones fighting an ideology they don't understand and have no information on. They are being used much like pawns to be sacrificed for some "greater good", they are not the only ones though.
Because so are the insurgents. An insurgent is a person looking to topple a government, some call them revolutionaries. These people are not backed by an existing government, they are renegades fueled by nationalism and an ironclad agenda. In Vietnam it was the Viet Cong, the North Vietnamese who worked in paramilitary units (small armed groups/militias) with the agenda of uniting Vietnam under a communist regime. In Afghanistan its the Taliban, an organization consisting of multiple paramilitary units and intelligence cells hell bent on filling the void left by Saddam Hussein when he was dethroned in Iraq. The Taliban already have control over Afghanistan, so getting Iraq would be a huge coup.
The Taliban's genesis goes back to when the, then Soviet Union, invaded Afghanistan in 1979, looking to take over their oil and other national resources.
At the time, the Soviets were America's #1 enemy and so they sent the CIA (unofficially I'm sure) to arm and train small cells of Afghanis (these cells were called The Mujihadeen) to fight the Soviets off. The Soviets where in Afghanistan for 10 years before they surrendered and finally left.
While the U.S. helped Afghanis fight the Soviets. They had problems of their own...in Iran. 1979 was the launch pad for the Islamic Revolution. The Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers had ran the U.S.-backed Iranian king Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Shah) out of Iran. The U.S. Launched an overthrow of a popular Iranian leader named Mossadegh during the 1950s, and replaced him with the Shah. The Ayatollah began openly rebelling against the Shah and his western benefactors (American, Britian, Israel). The Ayatollah and his followers wanted to have Iran's government work under Islamic Law (Sharia Law) and to have Iran ran for the benefit of Iranians without Western influences, influences that they believed to be contrary to Islamic teachings.
After some time the Ayatollah gained enough popularity (despite being in exile in France) that he was able to drive the Shah from his throne into exile. This was the Islamic Revolution in Iran.
The Islamic Revolution's main purpose was to protect Islam in Iran, but not just there but wherever it may be in the world so because the U.S. never listened to the grumbling of Arab nations over the treatment of Palestinians in Israel (since the 1950s), because the U.S. tried to take out Iran (by helping Saddam attack them) in the mid-1980s, and because Bush Sr. wrecked Saddam and Iraq (early 90s) the cup ranneth over to say the least.
Radicalized by the teachings of Iran's charismatic Ayatollah, cells of Muslims became staunchly anti-American, anti-British, and most definitely anti-Israeli. This lead to the terrorist attacks of modern history and the birth of many terrorist networks most notably The Taliban (formerly the Mujihadeen).
So what does all this have to do with cultural anthropology? Well its simple, Islam has its own culture. A culture that has been shunned for years, you see it today where Muslims are called "cave dwellers", "sand niggers", "camel jockeys" etc by people who have no idea about their culture. Islam is seen as evil by a lot of people (they don't really help their argument of Islam being peaceful with terrorist attacks). But they fail to see that the Muslims just wanted to be left alone. Its crazy that, it all boils down to leaving them to their own devices.
So, just like when the Vietnamese democratically voted for communism, and America decided to involved itself to stop the spread of communism led to the most wasteful and unpopular war in U.S. history. America inadvertently (and sometimes overtly) stepped in to interfere with Islamic culture which is leading to TWO wasteful and unpopular wars...and they are happening simultaneously!
The government not understanding this is why the wars are not over, not understanding this is why Iraq and Afghanistan have become the new Vietnams. Because you have the elites filling everyone's heads up with thoughts of victory and superiority that they haven't noticed that the wars are 8-9 years old and are probably nowhere near over.
You have the elites who tell you that the insurgents have no chance of winning because the U.S. has better technology, more troops, better training etc forget to tell you that the insurgents have more heart, better battle strategy, and a full understanding of the American war machine's might.
Insurgents are regular people, this is what it boils down to,
whether everyone wants to admit it or not they are. Some of them have had family members killed, they believe in their agenda and are willing to die (and become a martyr) for it. You can't scare these people!
The U.S. has done all that it could short of the A-Bomb. They tortured them in places like Guantanamo Bay in Cuba or in Poland and other places where they keep their secret prisons. They have targeted drones hunting their leadership down one at a time, and that's not working. They lead the public into believing they have killed or captured a "high ranking" Taliban officer just to find him replaced within hours. They have burned Korans, flushed Korans down the toilet, raped Iraqi women, bombed hospitals, schools, homes etc and wonder why recruitment never ceases (they want revenge dumbasses) or why they can't really get solid intelligence on their leadership (why should they help you when your killing children?). Like I said they are regular folks, this battle can be won but only if the U.S. gives up their brute force agenda its not working because it will not work. In fact its working against them.
Sun Tzu said: "If you know yourself and your enemy, you need not worry over the result of 100 battles. If you know yourself but not your enemy, for every victory you have you will also suffer a defeat." and believe me when I tell you, they don't really know the enemy.
Hickey wrote programs that the military rejected because they didn't like the results. Hickey found in his research that the villagers just wanted physical & economic security from the government, he found that overwhelming force [the military's favorite tactic] was counterproductive in this type of battle. Force creates martyrs, shows the enemy your overly brutal, and all that leads to increased recruitment for insurgent forces.
He stated that "Vietnam is a political war, and should be fought in the political arena." He found people [Montagnards or "highlanders"] who were willing to assist the U.S. in the war [despite their opposition the S. Vietnamese government]. He stated the Vietnamese custom of "accommodation" should be used to negotiate...the military said no they believed it "giving in or surrendering".
In the end the U.S. lost anyway, Hickey was ejected from the RAND Corporation and from the academia due to ethical conflicts. The military has a history of considering cultural anthropology as a "nuts n' huts" ideology and useless in real life battle. Ethnocentrism made a fool of this nation before, and from the looks of things it will again.
In 1984 Capsar Weinberger [Secretary of Defense under Pres. Reagan] created the 6 principles to avoid another Vietnam and those principles are:
(1) The United States should not commit forces to combat overseas unless the particular engagement or occasion is deemed vital to our national interest or that of our allies.
(2) If we decide it is necessary to put combat troops into a given situation, we should do so wholeheartedly, and with the clear intention of winning. If we are unwilling to commit the forces or resources necessary to achieve our objectives, we should not commit them at all. 
(3) If we do decide to commit forces to combat overseas, we should have clearly defined political and military objectives.
(4) The relationship between our objectives and the forces we have committed—their size, composition and disposition—must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
(5) Before the U.S. commits forces abroad, there must be some reasonable assurance we will have the support of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress.
(6) The commitment of U.S. forces to combat should be a last resort.
Those plans were resurrected by Colin Powell in 1994 but abandoned by the end of Clinton's presidency.
There is and seeming always have been a severe lack of cultural understanding in the National. Security establishment. It puts us all in danger, but it puts those that fight these wars in the most danger because they are the ones fighting an ideology they don't understand and have no information on. They are being used much like pawns to be sacrificed for some "greater good", they are not the only ones though.
Because so are the insurgents. An insurgent is a person looking to topple a government, some call them revolutionaries. These people are not backed by an existing government, they are renegades fueled by nationalism and an ironclad agenda. In Vietnam it was the Viet Cong, the North Vietnamese who worked in paramilitary units (small armed groups/militias) with the agenda of uniting Vietnam under a communist regime. In Afghanistan its the Taliban, an organization consisting of multiple paramilitary units and intelligence cells hell bent on filling the void left by Saddam Hussein when he was dethroned in Iraq. The Taliban already have control over Afghanistan, so getting Iraq would be a huge coup.
The Taliban's genesis goes back to when the, then Soviet Union, invaded Afghanistan in 1979, looking to take over their oil and other national resources.
At the time, the Soviets were America's #1 enemy and so they sent the CIA (unofficially I'm sure) to arm and train small cells of Afghanis (these cells were called The Mujihadeen) to fight the Soviets off. The Soviets where in Afghanistan for 10 years before they surrendered and finally left.
While the U.S. helped Afghanis fight the Soviets. They had problems of their own...in Iran. 1979 was the launch pad for the Islamic Revolution. The Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers had ran the U.S.-backed Iranian king Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Shah) out of Iran. The U.S. Launched an overthrow of a popular Iranian leader named Mossadegh during the 1950s, and replaced him with the Shah. The Ayatollah began openly rebelling against the Shah and his western benefactors (American, Britian, Israel). The Ayatollah and his followers wanted to have Iran's government work under Islamic Law (Sharia Law) and to have Iran ran for the benefit of Iranians without Western influences, influences that they believed to be contrary to Islamic teachings.
After some time the Ayatollah gained enough popularity (despite being in exile in France) that he was able to drive the Shah from his throne into exile. This was the Islamic Revolution in Iran.
The Islamic Revolution's main purpose was to protect Islam in Iran, but not just there but wherever it may be in the world so because the U.S. never listened to the grumbling of Arab nations over the treatment of Palestinians in Israel (since the 1950s), because the U.S. tried to take out Iran (by helping Saddam attack them) in the mid-1980s, and because Bush Sr. wrecked Saddam and Iraq (early 90s) the cup ranneth over to say the least.
Radicalized by the teachings of Iran's charismatic Ayatollah, cells of Muslims became staunchly anti-American, anti-British, and most definitely anti-Israeli. This lead to the terrorist attacks of modern history and the birth of many terrorist networks most notably The Taliban (formerly the Mujihadeen).
So what does all this have to do with cultural anthropology? Well its simple, Islam has its own culture. A culture that has been shunned for years, you see it today where Muslims are called "cave dwellers", "sand niggers", "camel jockeys" etc by people who have no idea about their culture. Islam is seen as evil by a lot of people (they don't really help their argument of Islam being peaceful with terrorist attacks). But they fail to see that the Muslims just wanted to be left alone. Its crazy that, it all boils down to leaving them to their own devices.
So, just like when the Vietnamese democratically voted for communism, and America decided to involved itself to stop the spread of communism led to the most wasteful and unpopular war in U.S. history. America inadvertently (and sometimes overtly) stepped in to interfere with Islamic culture which is leading to TWO wasteful and unpopular wars...and they are happening simultaneously!
The government not understanding this is why the wars are not over, not understanding this is why Iraq and Afghanistan have become the new Vietnams. Because you have the elites filling everyone's heads up with thoughts of victory and superiority that they haven't noticed that the wars are 8-9 years old and are probably nowhere near over.
You have the elites who tell you that the insurgents have no chance of winning because the U.S. has better technology, more troops, better training etc forget to tell you that the insurgents have more heart, better battle strategy, and a full understanding of the American war machine's might.
Insurgents are regular people, this is what it boils down to,
whether everyone wants to admit it or not they are. Some of them have had family members killed, they believe in their agenda and are willing to die (and become a martyr) for it. You can't scare these people!
The U.S. has done all that it could short of the A-Bomb. They tortured them in places like Guantanamo Bay in Cuba or in Poland and other places where they keep their secret prisons. They have targeted drones hunting their leadership down one at a time, and that's not working. They lead the public into believing they have killed or captured a "high ranking" Taliban officer just to find him replaced within hours. They have burned Korans, flushed Korans down the toilet, raped Iraqi women, bombed hospitals, schools, homes etc and wonder why recruitment never ceases (they want revenge dumbasses) or why they can't really get solid intelligence on their leadership (why should they help you when your killing children?). Like I said they are regular folks, this battle can be won but only if the U.S. gives up their brute force agenda its not working because it will not work. In fact its working against them.
Sun Tzu said: "If you know yourself and your enemy, you need not worry over the result of 100 battles. If you know yourself but not your enemy, for every victory you have you will also suffer a defeat." and believe me when I tell you, they don't really know the enemy.
Abortion and Crime
Recently I came upon a video from an economist named Steven Levitt. In the video he discusses a book he wrote which suggests the legalization of abortion led to lower crime rates in the future.
He and his partner believed that since low income kids are more likely to be aborted and those same low income kids tend commit more crime, then ultimately more low income abortion led to lower crime rates.
They believe that since the 70s when abortion was legalized that the crime rates dropped in the 90s because those "at-risk" children were not born and thus did not grow up to become criminals in their late teens or early twenties [which are the years some people believe people tend to commit crimes].
To summarize the concept, it is structured thusly:
1-underprivileged people are more likely to commit crimes,
2-underprivileged people are more likely to have abortions,
Therefore, the more abortions in low income areas the less potential criminals born in the world.
This idea looks promising and I'm sure they have many, many mountains of evidence to back their claim, I still call shenanigans on this and here's why...
"Underprivileged" youths and families are usually minorities. Abortion rates especially among blacks is exceptionally high and yet crime is still prevalent in underprivileged communities. So even if the data shows that crime dropped in high risk areas during the 90s it didn't stay that way. Besides and I believe they address this, the 90s had a better economy than the 70s and 80s which would lead to lower crime in itself.
Another thing not mentioned by Levitt but mentioned by me, is the racial make up of this study. I mentioned before that minorities make up the majority of the underprivileged communities, so by definition he's saying that if blacks and latinos aborted themselves at higher rates then crime would drop at higher rates (already proven false).
Eugenics also comes into play here. Eugenics is defined as: "the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)". Looking at that definition and combining it with their study, you can see that they are saying that "underprivileged" youths (blacks and latinos) are a criminal culture, meaning that they are born to or predetermined by their nature to be criminals and thus their high abortion rates is good and benefit society as a whole.
Of course Levitt and Donahue didn't say all that. In the video eugenics isn't mentioned at all. So its safe to say they might not have even meant to co-sign eugenics but it can't be helped that eugenics is what they are proposing. They never mentioned race because a major point is that the poor are more likely to commit crime. Meaning that poor whites are included. So maybe then instead of eugenics, its a very creative stab at promoting class warfare. The rich wanting the poor to thin themselves out (for what reason I would not know, they need the poor).
Levitt & Donahue's study was a popular one when it was released (I believe the original book; Freakanomics, was released in 1999). There were many debunking papers written to challenge their assertions and eventually it fizzled out. I'm sure if someone wanted read them they would see more solid evidence using crime rate figures and other things to debunk their ideas and maybe some that feature the eugenics argument. Regardless of whether its been debunked to death or not I wanted to discuss it here because as a man that was born in an underprivileged home, and was born during the 80s when abortion was legal and had friends who fell into crime, I take offense to the argument even being made. Especially by so-called "intellectuals", men with degrees, professors at American colleges where I am a student, where my brothers and friends from similar backgrounds are students that these people got acclaim for an argument that had shades of applauding genocide on the underprivileged class, and destruction of the minority family structure.
In closing, this correlation is one that promotes eugenics and genocide. Whether inadvertently or overtly it does, and its sad to see people putting so much stock into this. Historically people have been looking for ways and reasons to get others to believe in a superiority/inferiority concept, this is just one more thrown on the heap. We've seen things like this before (the Bell Curve) and they always hang around in the minds of people that are believers in their data. But like all the others this one could not handle the rigorous testing that comes with theory and thus it is dead...and rightfully so.
He and his partner believed that since low income kids are more likely to be aborted and those same low income kids tend commit more crime, then ultimately more low income abortion led to lower crime rates.
They believe that since the 70s when abortion was legalized that the crime rates dropped in the 90s because those "at-risk" children were not born and thus did not grow up to become criminals in their late teens or early twenties [which are the years some people believe people tend to commit crimes].
To summarize the concept, it is structured thusly:
1-underprivileged people are more likely to commit crimes,
2-underprivileged people are more likely to have abortions,
Therefore, the more abortions in low income areas the less potential criminals born in the world.
This idea looks promising and I'm sure they have many, many mountains of evidence to back their claim, I still call shenanigans on this and here's why...
"Underprivileged" youths and families are usually minorities. Abortion rates especially among blacks is exceptionally high and yet crime is still prevalent in underprivileged communities. So even if the data shows that crime dropped in high risk areas during the 90s it didn't stay that way. Besides and I believe they address this, the 90s had a better economy than the 70s and 80s which would lead to lower crime in itself.
Another thing not mentioned by Levitt but mentioned by me, is the racial make up of this study. I mentioned before that minorities make up the majority of the underprivileged communities, so by definition he's saying that if blacks and latinos aborted themselves at higher rates then crime would drop at higher rates (already proven false).
Eugenics also comes into play here. Eugenics is defined as: "the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)". Looking at that definition and combining it with their study, you can see that they are saying that "underprivileged" youths (blacks and latinos) are a criminal culture, meaning that they are born to or predetermined by their nature to be criminals and thus their high abortion rates is good and benefit society as a whole.
Of course Levitt and Donahue didn't say all that. In the video eugenics isn't mentioned at all. So its safe to say they might not have even meant to co-sign eugenics but it can't be helped that eugenics is what they are proposing. They never mentioned race because a major point is that the poor are more likely to commit crime. Meaning that poor whites are included. So maybe then instead of eugenics, its a very creative stab at promoting class warfare. The rich wanting the poor to thin themselves out (for what reason I would not know, they need the poor).
Levitt & Donahue's study was a popular one when it was released (I believe the original book; Freakanomics, was released in 1999). There were many debunking papers written to challenge their assertions and eventually it fizzled out. I'm sure if someone wanted read them they would see more solid evidence using crime rate figures and other things to debunk their ideas and maybe some that feature the eugenics argument. Regardless of whether its been debunked to death or not I wanted to discuss it here because as a man that was born in an underprivileged home, and was born during the 80s when abortion was legal and had friends who fell into crime, I take offense to the argument even being made. Especially by so-called "intellectuals", men with degrees, professors at American colleges where I am a student, where my brothers and friends from similar backgrounds are students that these people got acclaim for an argument that had shades of applauding genocide on the underprivileged class, and destruction of the minority family structure.
In closing, this correlation is one that promotes eugenics and genocide. Whether inadvertently or overtly it does, and its sad to see people putting so much stock into this. Historically people have been looking for ways and reasons to get others to believe in a superiority/inferiority concept, this is just one more thrown on the heap. We've seen things like this before (the Bell Curve) and they always hang around in the minds of people that are believers in their data. But like all the others this one could not handle the rigorous testing that comes with theory and thus it is dead...and rightfully so.
People You Should Know: Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius ascended to the crown of Emperor of the Roman Empire in 161 A.D as a co-emperor. When his co-emperor died in 168 be became sole emperor of Rome. Now us Americans hate terms like "king" or "emperor" we instantly think of bloodthirsty tyrants. But many considered Aurelius "the last good emperor of Rome".
Aurelius is historically known as a man of the people. The people, specifically the poor of Rome greatly benefitted from his reign. He built more schools, hospitals, orphanages than any other emperor (from my understanding). He also saw to bring fairness in slavery.
Looking to force slaveholders to treat their slaves better by creating laws and other regulations to ensure the human treatment of slaves. It is assumed that Aurelius was an emperor to be proud of during that time. While under his watch Rome fell into a recession due to the Roman love of war. These long wars cost a ton of money (just as they do today) and Aurelius needed to bring forth funds to pay his soldiers. Instead of doing what our gov would do (tax the hell out of us) it was said Aurelius sold his personal belongings! When Rome achieved victory he used money gained from victory to buy back what he sold. Some people preferred to keep the emperors things and he was fine with that. This is incredible considering he could have just ordered his belongings returned to him by force.
Aurelius was known as an emperor for the people but the thing Aurelius is known for most is his fantastic writing. Specifically his master work "The Meditations" where the Emperor shared his philosophy on life.
The Meditations is considered classic text and a building block in creating "stoic philosophy". Aurelius philosophy championed such virtues as: wisdom, justice, fortitude and moderation. He believe that "morality leads to tranquility" and being tranquil and moral should be mans ultimate goal in life (I will share some quotes from this text later).
Like almost all Romans of the time it is said Aurelius greatly disliked Christianity. But unlike other emperors Aurelius never hunted for Christians in order to persecute them. Sad to say people found practicing Christianity were punished by death and more Christians were executed during his reign than any other but on the other side of the story it was also said Aurelius never initiated the martyrdom of Christian practitioners.
Marcus Aurelius died 180 A.D of a mysterious disease some believe he caught the plague. Although completely Roman is his love for expanding Roman imperialism, killing Christians, and subjugation of peoples after his conquest of them. Aurelius was considered kind, morally upright, and a lover of justice.
Marcus Aurelius Emperor of The Roman Empire from 161-180 is a person you need to know. But why? What makes Aurelius relevant to today? I would say the idea of having an intellectual leader is one foreign to our contemporary society, nay our modern world. In a world where men are driven by agenda and not justice, where leaders treat their followers like expendable trash an emperor, a term, a title we are taught to hate still created a following by not only expanding his empire, not only by expanding his own purse, but also by expanding his mind and the hearts of the citizens.
Aurelius is historically known as a man of the people. The people, specifically the poor of Rome greatly benefitted from his reign. He built more schools, hospitals, orphanages than any other emperor (from my understanding). He also saw to bring fairness in slavery.
Looking to force slaveholders to treat their slaves better by creating laws and other regulations to ensure the human treatment of slaves. It is assumed that Aurelius was an emperor to be proud of during that time. While under his watch Rome fell into a recession due to the Roman love of war. These long wars cost a ton of money (just as they do today) and Aurelius needed to bring forth funds to pay his soldiers. Instead of doing what our gov would do (tax the hell out of us) it was said Aurelius sold his personal belongings! When Rome achieved victory he used money gained from victory to buy back what he sold. Some people preferred to keep the emperors things and he was fine with that. This is incredible considering he could have just ordered his belongings returned to him by force.
Aurelius was known as an emperor for the people but the thing Aurelius is known for most is his fantastic writing. Specifically his master work "The Meditations" where the Emperor shared his philosophy on life.
The Meditations is considered classic text and a building block in creating "stoic philosophy". Aurelius philosophy championed such virtues as: wisdom, justice, fortitude and moderation. He believe that "morality leads to tranquility" and being tranquil and moral should be mans ultimate goal in life (I will share some quotes from this text later).
Like almost all Romans of the time it is said Aurelius greatly disliked Christianity. But unlike other emperors Aurelius never hunted for Christians in order to persecute them. Sad to say people found practicing Christianity were punished by death and more Christians were executed during his reign than any other but on the other side of the story it was also said Aurelius never initiated the martyrdom of Christian practitioners.
Marcus Aurelius died 180 A.D of a mysterious disease some believe he caught the plague. Although completely Roman is his love for expanding Roman imperialism, killing Christians, and subjugation of peoples after his conquest of them. Aurelius was considered kind, morally upright, and a lover of justice.
Marcus Aurelius Emperor of The Roman Empire from 161-180 is a person you need to know. But why? What makes Aurelius relevant to today? I would say the idea of having an intellectual leader is one foreign to our contemporary society, nay our modern world. In a world where men are driven by agenda and not justice, where leaders treat their followers like expendable trash an emperor, a term, a title we are taught to hate still created a following by not only expanding his empire, not only by expanding his own purse, but also by expanding his mind and the hearts of the citizens.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Dead Aid...Africa and Monetary Aid
Recently, upon some downtime in between finals I came across a video. In that video was an African woman named Dambisa Moyo. She is from the African country of Zambia. Moyo was very educated she had gone to Harvard, gotten her Ph.D in something I don't remember from Oxford and had written a book entitled Dead Aid.
In the book she says that the Western world, specifically the U.S. should stop sending aid money to Africa. Well of course dissonance kicked in and I at this point was pretty flustered at the idea of an African not wanting Africans to be aided financially. However being the fair person I am I continued to listen and understand her theories and came to the conclusion...that perhaps she's right.
You see to Moyo, all the financial [government to government] aid that the West sends to Africa is squandered by the state governments.
She differentiates medical aid [which is necessary] and this government to government aid. She states that the original purpose of this government to government aid was to help African governments invest in African citizens for economic growth. In other words to fight poverty and to her the financial aid to fight poverty in Africa has failed, for numerous reasons, but the top reason is that the African governments see this aid as INCOME.
What does this mean? Well the way she puts it: that African governments have been receiving financial aid [usually in the upper millions to billions of dollars] regularly for 50-60 years with no improvement to the population at large and no dent in African poverty. In fact those impoverished populations are poorer than before [the same can be said for America]. Therefore she says those African governments have decided not to pursue their own country's economic growth because they will continue to receive money under the pretense that they are poor. She believes cutting African nations off will force the governments to invest in their own nations and create jobs and wealth etc, in their own respective countries.
She also mentions the widespread corruption of African governments. It is fairly well known that many in African governments just pocket the money given to them for their people and never distribute it, or they distribute very little of it.
She also tells of how little Africans know of banking and markets. Now I won't bore you with the economics or statistics but the amount of banks in Africa are minimal. She says Africans have what economists call "dead money" [keeping money in places where it doesn't earn interest, i.e under the mattress] and thus all of Africa's wealth and her people's wealth die out over time.
She believes that by cutting aid, African governments would be forced to encourage economic growth within their own states and then those governments can start to look into making their citizens more economically intelligent with the money they have earned. All of this combined should spur more economic growth and pull Africa out of widespread poverty, or at least that is Moyo's theory.
Strangely enough I had never thought of it before. I had heard about corruption in Nigeria, Malawi, etc but I assumed all of that was corporate bribery which is something she oddly left out in the video [not to say it isn't mentioned in the book, I haven't read it]. Corruption in Africa is almost always followed by a corporate name: Haliburton, Exxon. I never thought about government to government bribery, or that these governments don't distribute wealth but rather see it as their paycheck to do with it whatever they wish.
Moyo's beliefs are not farfetched and in fact in these hard economic times in this country, these ideas should be considered even more. With the massive debt the U.S is in do we really want to keep funneling funds, we don't have, into Africa? Well no, but I would say in these harsh times we need to cut off all financial government to government aid, not only to Africa but to other countries as well.
Then it struck me...think for a second about the wealth of natural resources that sit in Africa...diamonds, gold, rubber, oil..do you really think Western capitalist governments and their corporations want to educate those people on the wealth they sit on? Imagine if they had to pay the governments and people what those commodities were really worth. How much more would we, here in America, pay for goods? Scary to think how much we benefit from African ignorance and yet some of us strive to see them awakened. Kwame Nkrumah's plan for Pan-African socialism would thrive and Africa would truly prosper, possibly beyond the Western world.
With that said, I fear Moyo's ideals will fall on deaf ears. They will continue to support corruption in African governments because it keeps the prices on African natural resources low and their corporate bottom lines fat. But also because we, the American public and Westerners in general, greatly benefit from Africa's ignorance with cheap goods.
In the book she says that the Western world, specifically the U.S. should stop sending aid money to Africa. Well of course dissonance kicked in and I at this point was pretty flustered at the idea of an African not wanting Africans to be aided financially. However being the fair person I am I continued to listen and understand her theories and came to the conclusion...that perhaps she's right.
You see to Moyo, all the financial [government to government] aid that the West sends to Africa is squandered by the state governments.
She differentiates medical aid [which is necessary] and this government to government aid. She states that the original purpose of this government to government aid was to help African governments invest in African citizens for economic growth. In other words to fight poverty and to her the financial aid to fight poverty in Africa has failed, for numerous reasons, but the top reason is that the African governments see this aid as INCOME.
What does this mean? Well the way she puts it: that African governments have been receiving financial aid [usually in the upper millions to billions of dollars] regularly for 50-60 years with no improvement to the population at large and no dent in African poverty. In fact those impoverished populations are poorer than before [the same can be said for America]. Therefore she says those African governments have decided not to pursue their own country's economic growth because they will continue to receive money under the pretense that they are poor. She believes cutting African nations off will force the governments to invest in their own nations and create jobs and wealth etc, in their own respective countries.
She also mentions the widespread corruption of African governments. It is fairly well known that many in African governments just pocket the money given to them for their people and never distribute it, or they distribute very little of it.
She also tells of how little Africans know of banking and markets. Now I won't bore you with the economics or statistics but the amount of banks in Africa are minimal. She says Africans have what economists call "dead money" [keeping money in places where it doesn't earn interest, i.e under the mattress] and thus all of Africa's wealth and her people's wealth die out over time.
She believes that by cutting aid, African governments would be forced to encourage economic growth within their own states and then those governments can start to look into making their citizens more economically intelligent with the money they have earned. All of this combined should spur more economic growth and pull Africa out of widespread poverty, or at least that is Moyo's theory.
Strangely enough I had never thought of it before. I had heard about corruption in Nigeria, Malawi, etc but I assumed all of that was corporate bribery which is something she oddly left out in the video [not to say it isn't mentioned in the book, I haven't read it]. Corruption in Africa is almost always followed by a corporate name: Haliburton, Exxon. I never thought about government to government bribery, or that these governments don't distribute wealth but rather see it as their paycheck to do with it whatever they wish.
Moyo's beliefs are not farfetched and in fact in these hard economic times in this country, these ideas should be considered even more. With the massive debt the U.S is in do we really want to keep funneling funds, we don't have, into Africa? Well no, but I would say in these harsh times we need to cut off all financial government to government aid, not only to Africa but to other countries as well.
Then it struck me...think for a second about the wealth of natural resources that sit in Africa...diamonds, gold, rubber, oil..do you really think Western capitalist governments and their corporations want to educate those people on the wealth they sit on? Imagine if they had to pay the governments and people what those commodities were really worth. How much more would we, here in America, pay for goods? Scary to think how much we benefit from African ignorance and yet some of us strive to see them awakened. Kwame Nkrumah's plan for Pan-African socialism would thrive and Africa would truly prosper, possibly beyond the Western world.
With that said, I fear Moyo's ideals will fall on deaf ears. They will continue to support corruption in African governments because it keeps the prices on African natural resources low and their corporate bottom lines fat. But also because we, the American public and Westerners in general, greatly benefit from Africa's ignorance with cheap goods.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
