RE: [pf] Activism

At 13:16 15/02/00 -0800, Diane Fitzsimmons wrote:
> ... human rights violations -- by our enemies, by our friends and by
>ourselves -- are wrong and we should work toward justice in all cases.  
>I know in reality we can't be the world's police officer ... or even 
>behave perfectly in our own household, but ... who will make the
>world safe for her children?
>    And the only answer I can think of is -- myself.
>
>And I wonder how much good is to sit here safely in the U.S., 
>surrounded by all my little creature comforts.  
> ... it makes me want to wade in and fix things.  And sometimes 
>I think that's the right answer.
> ... I know there are cultural differences in how we define "fixing
>things."  But surely we can agree on a full belly, clean water, shelter,
>medical access and safety from abuse as a good start.
>

**  We used to have a volunteer and service agency which worked both
overseas and in New Zealand; it split into two because the people
(including returned volunteers) couldn't agree on which should be the prime
focus. (The overseas part became Oxfam NZ.) This allowed supporters to feel
they were doing the right thing by getting involved in one or the other,
sometimes both.

**  I myself, knowing first-hand what it's like to live in Africa and
India, have had to decide whether I want to go and live for at least a few
years in either the depressed parts of New Zealand (Northland, the East
Cape - I've visited both), or in even more depressed Pacific Islands and
East Timor (or further afield, maybe Vietnam). This would be after I'm
"flush with money", getting ~$10,000 a year from the Government when I've
turned 65, and making use of it in what would then be my local community -
I'm thinking I might provide micro-credit there, for one thing.

**  I'm much in favour of "wading in to fix things", in circumstances like
I've described where my personal effort and money supply would make a real
difference. I /don't/ expect that "we should go over there and fix it"
means that my government should do it on my behalf. For one thing, projects
designed and implemented from outside the community are, from world-wide
experience, unlikely to have much long-term beneficial effect.

**  To me, the best idea for people with what I'd call big family incomes,
/and/ with the inclination and will-power to carry it out, would be first
to down-size all expenses with the aim of saving half of the family's 1999
annual expenses, to be used for a family trip to some foreign part of the
world that's outside the OECD (rich nations), and then probably to continue
living-on-little comfortably in the USA, while putting those thousands of
dollars to work in places where they'd be very valuable providing people
there with "a full belly, clean water, shelter, medical access and safety
from abuse". You could go back (if the money's going to where you've
visited) in a year or two, to see what's been happening; you would
certainly expect to get reports of what your money did (along with others).
**  Imagine what the effect would be of 20,000,000 Americans sending (and
monitoring) $10,000 per couple, to places like Vietnam, East Timor, Iraq,
Kosovo, Checheniya, and that southern state of Mexico where the people want
to run their own lives:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/chiapas.html
    A hundred billion dollars a year, going from those who can afford it to
families who can make much better use of it, improving their standard of
living from horrible to tolerable.

**  While I was most impressed with the Peace Activists' camp on the border
between Saudi Arabia and Iraq during the US-&-allies attack on Iraq (the
people there were putting their bodies on the line for their beliefs), I
don't think it had much effect. A similar, but longer term (years) women's
camp around the outside of that US airbase in Britain where they had the
nuclear warheads, did have a significant effect in leading public opinion
away from the sabre-rattling (see how old this attitude is?) bellicosity of
the previous years.


**  Another point about civil wars, rebellion against dictators, a nation's
military forces being directed against its citizens - I'm talking about the
scenario envisioned by the framers of the US Constitution - and other
attempts to "throw off the yoke of the oppressor". It takes _time_: years,
decades, generations. So people imbued with the "I want it, and I want it
/now/" attitude, probably are the wrong ones to "wade in to fix things".

**  Peace and justice are in the heart, IMO, and the hearts of most have to
change; this takes time. For example, the current crop of CEOs may have to
retire before significant change (and certainly before sufficient change)
can occur in the economy/environment arena.

David.
(David MacClement) davd@ihug.co.nz 
www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3142/Pg1-AD11.html
 or better: http://www.emucities.com.au/member/davd/
****************************************************


_____________________________________________________________
Who will win the Oscars? Spout off on our Entertainment list!
http://www.topica.com/lists/showbiztalk