Topcropper you may find this link interesting...I did not see this here in Oz, and it is a little dated now, (think I was in UK and saw it).
.
Nothing there oob...???
what human rights are still being neglected?
- Thread starter Carol
- Start date
Nothing there oob...???
I was aware of the aids epidemic in Africa, but that wikipedia bit is truely horrific. What about the reduction in lifespan in some of those places?
See ya's.
Hi tc,
This is the sort of thing I was hinting at when I said
- education
- access to contraception
- access to proper medical facilities
earlier in the thread. Pretty awful isn't it.
Mark
....and some questions have simple wrong answers, skewed by irrational bias towards others' religion and culture.
the greatest rate of increase of hiv in 2004 was in Central and Eastern Asia, and Eastern Europe, not Africa.
and of course, let not the white man patronize Africa's own cultures, traditions, and beliefs by belittling their role in determining their attitudes towards birth rate and HIV avoidance....
oh my gosh, don't tell me Africans don't have the same beliefs as us???? shock horror.....
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/afraid/review.php#n41
"But Africans may hold yet greater cultural and religious reasons to resist the prescribed HIV prevention methods. Distinctively sub-Saharan African traditions don't emphasize fidelity and monogamy, as is done in the West and with Asia's major religions. Even where Western religions are heavily practiced, these more traditional cultural norms persist.8
One researcher, investigating behavior in Malawi, emphasizes this point, saying that social conceptions of desirable living—based on women's views as well as men's—run counter to abstinence and fidelity as well as condom use. She writes, "Men say that multiple partners are desirable because each woman is different: just as 'You can't eat only nsima every day' (nsima, made from cornmeal, is the staple food.)"9 These attitudes also reflect the fact that polygamy was routinely practiced in a variety of southern African cultures as recently as a century ago.
Furthermore, fidelity is not the only cultural norm working against HIV containment. Some research reports a deep-seated unwillingness to discuss sex in the family, either between husband and wife or between father and child. A researcher studied sexual behavior in Tanzania, and found that in addition to widespread infidelities on the part of men, "Confessing to your partner about an 'illicit' relationship is beyond consideration: it is not only too cruel, but disrespectful."10 And few reports of sub-Saharan African policies suggest a widespread acceptance of condoms. A study of preferences of both men and women in Ghana referred to condoms as being a "double agony" in that they cost money (not a trivial concern in countries as poor as Ghana) and then take away from the pleasure of sex. While these concerns do not imply that condom promotion is entirely ineffective, they suggest such programs' limitations.11
Beyond these tendencies, a different sort of cultural norm is also contributing to the spread of HIV. In sub-Saharan Africa, 75% of young people infected are female.12 Girls who are not equipped with proper education and are not on an equal footing with men are often coerced into sex or marriage, and may be forced to become sexually active at a very young age, with disastrous results. Furthermore, women are physically more susceptible to HIV infection from sex than men because the female genital tract has a greater exposed surface area than the male genital tract. Rape is not uncommon, especially in areas with significant gender inequality. Studies suggest that infected males are significantly more likely to infect females than the reverse.13 And violent rape, which is abrasive and damages tissues, leaves a woman even more susceptible. Even faithful women must concern themselves with their husband's fidelity. Compounding these issues is the fact that, particularly in rural areas, poverty encourages women into sexual liaisons as a survival strategy."
Yes, right, absolutely, WW. Which is why, come the revolution, I will have you taken out of your home, put up against a wall, and summarily executed. No, on second thoughts, perhaps a bit of torture before the shooting would be interesting
MC
Yes, right, absolutely, WW. Which is why, come the revolution, I will have you taken out of your home, put up against a wall, and summarily executed. No, on second thoughts, perhaps a bit of torture before the shooting would be interesting
MC
....and like the innocents of Poland, Bosnia, and Iraq some years ago, and Eritreya, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Angola, Indonesia etc today, I won't be relying on the rest of the world to stop you....
[no sir-reee Africa, you don't want to be relying on comfy middle class foreigners to pick up a gun and uphold your 'human rights'. those rights are more about making us developed world folk feel all warm and fuzzy as we discuss them ad infinitum over tea and cucumber sandwiches, and less about saving your sorry lives.]
if history is to be respected, best I and my tribe get busy and industrious enough to be able to afford a defence force more powerful than yours Michael, and forge alliances with strong like mindeds.
WW, the fact that human rights have been and are being violated, does not mean they do not exist. If we are to get philosophical here; our discussion of their violation, is but one proof of their existence.
And don't worry, mine will be a peaceful revolution, mindful of your human rights - as tempting as it might be to see a petit bourgeois repent
MC
And don't worry, mine will be a peaceful revolution, mindful of your human rights - as tempting as it might be to see a petit bourgeois repent
MC
WW, the fact that human rights have been and are being violated, does not mean they do not exist. If we are to get philosophical here; our discussion of their violation, is but one proof of their existence.
And don't worry, mine will be a peaceful revolution, mindful of your human rights - as tempting as it might be to see a petit bourgeois repent
MC
No worries Michael, just adding a little harsh? light of day.....
though my point remains that a right is not a right if it is not enforceable or enforced.... the same scenario as for laws.... the bourgesoise will always try and mollify the need to stamp out force with force.....which is just self deception in the face of history, as the petite are disinclined to back their bark with bite.
the price of liberty is eternal vigilance....and also having a bigger gun than the other guy...denying that is denying history and human nature.
and my view is to highlight the commonality of rights and laws, which has serious downside.....cos the rights movement are more interested in making rights law....and once they do that, you and I will be paying with it with our cash and kids....
though when Bush gets voted out, how soon do you think the US will be investing in upholding another country's human rights? especially Taiwan's, Japan's, etc etc etc and even Australia's....
Well that is one theory. I will however argue that the opposite applies - that EVERYBODY has the right to food, shelter, jobs, money, health and a decent standard of living etc etc and no-one has the right to DENY others access to the above, which is what basically happens via corporate greed, religious persecution and corrupt governments. There are enough resources to easily feed our global population - no one has to starve, live in poverty or die of disease. It is greed and corruption that causes starvation and poverty, not scarce resources.
It is easy for us to say that everyone has the opportunity to pursue wealth for themselves from our comfy lounges, but the starving family in Africa or SE Asia might disagree. It is assinine to presume to say that people in real poverty have all these opportunities, when we have no idea of the hardships they face every day. Most of the "opportunities" that exist for these people probably make them worse off than they were before - for example Thai and Vietnamese tribal families selling their children into sexual slavery to westerners for paltry amounts of money.
On another topic, has anyone been watching that show where these families thought they were going on a luxury holiday and got dumped with these tribes in Africa and Indonesia? It has opened my eyes as to how some people in this world still rely totally on the earth and nature for everything they have - and they seem a hell of a lot happier than some people I know who would consider themselves "rich".
....or as my American work buddies would say..."Talk softly and carry a big stick".
In this case, big stick = nuclear powered aircraft carrier fleet.
The US has one such "big stick" stationed in the Straits of Hormuz, at the cost of 1 Billion USD per week. I reckon that'd buy a few meals and hospital kit for the poor.....but they choose security of supply of the good black liquid stuff over the other fluffy humanitarian stuff, rightly or wrongly.
It's simply a question of priorities. The Land of the Brave and Free shall not be denied their consumer wants.
though China and Russia shall be denied their consumer needs....by their own elites, who then hightail it over to England to live in nice big houses in the English countryside...
ain't it a bugger when oil is needed for:
- the fertilizer for the food for the meals
- wielding the big stick's guns, tanks, planes, and ships
no oil means no big stick, and a lot less food to go around.
whatdya gonna do!!!!!
Though something tells me when the US democrats or Ron Paul get in to power and move back to a non interventionist foreign policy, and as china and India progressively tie up more of the world's oil reserves, we should have this debate again...
Similar threads
