Globalni svinjac

[Ghoul]

Genocid sproveden nad Haicanskim kreolskim svinjama ("Haitian Creole pig")
osamdesetih godina proslog veka je tipican primer globalizacije [svinjca] na delu.

Haicanske male crne kreolske svinje su bile osnova seoske ekonomije. Vrlo
srcana sorta, dobro prilagodjena lokalnim klimatskim i drugim uslovima,
spremna da "jede go*na" i ostale otpatke i u stanju da prezivi i do tri dana
bez hrane...

Izmedju 80 i 85% seoskih domacinstava gajilo je ove svinje, a one su,
izmedju ostalog, igrale vaznu ulogu i u proizvodnji prirodnog "gnojiva" i
odrzavanju plodnosti zemljista. Svinje su, na izvestan nacin, bile jedina
sigurna investicija i, time, predstavljale prave porodicne fondove...
Po obicaju, svinje su se prodavale u izuzetnim okolnostima - prilikom
sahrana, svadbi, krstenja (sve ovo zvuci vrlo, vrlo poznato??), bolesti i,
sto je najbitnije, za pokrivanje troskova skolarine i kupovine knjiga deci
prilikom upisa u novu skolsku godinu - svakog oktobra.

1982-e godine medjunarodne agencije za razvoj "objasnile" su Haicanskim
seljacima da su njihove svinje obolele i da ih treba pobiti (da se "bolest"
ne bi prenela na zemlje severno od Haitija).
Naravno, kao i sve "medjunarodne agencije" i ove su obecale da se pobijene
svinje biti zamenjene "novim i boljim" svinjama. Haicanske kreolske svinje
su, tokom sledecih 13 meseci, pobijene u akciji koja se, prema efikasnosti,
moze meriti sa najefikasnijim "razvojnim" projektima.

Posle 2 [???] godine stigle su nove, bolje svinje, iz Ajove. One su bile
toliko "bolje" da su zahtevale cistu pijacu vodu (kojom, inace, ne raspolaze

najmanje 80% Haicanske populacije), uvoznu "stocnu" hranu (po ceni, pravoj
sitnici, od svega $90 godisnje u vreme kada je prihod po glavi stanovnika
bio oko $130) i, naravno, specijalno uredjene, pokrivene, svinjce...

Haicani su ih, ubrzo potom, nazvali "prince a quatre pieds" - cetvoronozne
princeze. Ne treba ni komentarisati kako su se Haicani osecali kad su
probali ukus "novih boljih" svinja - bio je totalna katastrofa...

Zapravo je citav program "globalizacije svinjca" bio totalna katastrofa -
posmatraci procenjuju da su Haicanski farmeri izgubili cirka $600 miliona
(dolara). Upis u skole je opao za 30% u ruralnim krajevima, potrosnja
proteina [a oni su valjda zdravi??] je dramaticno opala, a sveukupni uticaj
ovog "razvojnog" projekta na seosku ekonomiju bio je devastirajuci. Ne treba

ni pominjati negativan uticaj na Haicansko plodno zemljiste i poljoprivredu
koji je bio neprocenjivo velik.

Haicansko seljastvo se nije provratilo do dana danasnjeg...
[Za postenu inteligenciju nemamo podataka.]

Veci deo ruralnog Haitija je i danas izolovan od globalnog trzista a seljaci

se jos uvek secaju svojih kreolskih svinja kao svog prvog & pravog iskustva
sa globalizacijom.

Danas, kad im se govori o potrebama "ekonomskih reformi" i privatizacije
koja ce im doneti korist - Haicani su razumljivo zabrinuti. Drzavna
preduzeca su pred propascu i treba ih sto pre privatizovati, kazu im - dok
oni klimaju glavama i secaju se svojih kreolskih svinja...

--Prema knjizi "Eyes of the Heart: Seeking a Path for the Poor in the Age of

Globalization," Jean-Bertrand Aristide-a

[varvarin]

Poučan tekst, do jaja.
Šteta što ovo ne čitaju mondijalisti sa SEDMOG KONTINENTA... i drugi mondijalisti.

[S.]

Ako te tema zanima, ima jako mnogo toga unaokolo. Recimo, mozes da probas da skines sa KOBSON-a ceo tekst The Environmental Limits to Globalization

Conservation Biology
Volume 19 Issue 2 Page 318  - April 2005
doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00324.x

The Environmental Limits to Globalization
DAVID EHRENFELD

Abstract: Criticisms of globalization have been largely based on its socioeconomic effects, but the environmental impacts of globalization are equally important. These include acceleration of climate change; drawdown of global stocks of cheap energy; substantial increases in air, water, and soil pollution; decreases in biodiversity, including a massive loss of crop and livestock varieties; depletion of ocean fisheries; and a significant increase in invasions of exotic species, including plant, animal, and human pathogens. Because of negative feedback from these changes, the future of globalization itself is bleak. The environmental and social problems inherent in globalization are completely interrelated-any attempt to treat them as separate entities is unlikely to succeed in easing the transition to a postglobalized world.

[varvarin]

S., zahvaljujem ( pretpostavljam da je post upućen meni).
Uzgred... runski znak kojim se potpisuješ: simbolizuje Sunce i pobedu.
Mene zanima kako se on zove - kod Nemaca, to je runa Zig (! ), ali kod Skandinavaca, to je  "sowilo"... Možeš li mi pomoći, kako se to izgovara?
Otkriću ti tajnu - pišem nešto, i ima smisla da navedem nazive nekih runa.

[S.]

Jeste, prevashodno je tebi bilo namenjeno. KOBSON-u se moz epristupiti samo sa yu domena, pa ...

Inace, runa je "sugil" tako je ja znam. Cini mi se da je germanska varijanta Sowelo, starodanska sulu, staronorveska sol, gotska sugil... koliko kapiram. Mislim da sam slicicu skinula odavde. Note that slovo "s" u runskoj "azbuci" drugacije izgleda. Ali se meni nije dopalo graficko resenje te sam se okrenula magicnim runama, sta znas mozda vredi

[varvarin]

Super, hvala!
Možda upitam za izgovor još nekog  znaka!

[Ghoul]

još malo iz svinjca:



The Guardian(UK)     Tuesday May 10, 2005
   
   An ethical blank cheque

   British and US mythology about the second world war ignores our
own  crimes and  legitimises Anglo-American warmaking

   Richard Drayton


   In 1945, as at the end of all wars, the victor powers spun the
conflict's
   history to serve the interests of their elites. Wartime propaganda
thus achieved
   an extraordinary afterlife. As Vladimir Putin showed yesterday,
the
Great
   Patriotic War remains a key political resource in Russia. In
Britain and the US,
   too, a certain idea of the second world war is enthusiastically
kept alive and
   less flattering memories suppressed.

   Five years ago, Robert Lilly, a distinguished American
sociologist,
prepared a
   book based on military archives. Taken by Force is a study of the
rapes
   committed by American soldiers in Europe between 1942 and 1945. He
submitted his
   manuscript in 2001. But after September 11, its US publisher
suppressed it, and
   it first appeared in 2003 in a French translation.

   We know from Anthony Beevor about the sexual violence unleashed by
the Red Army,
   but we prefer not to know about mass rape committed by American
and
British
   troops. Lilly suggests a minimum of 10,000 American rapes.
Contemporaries
   described a much wider scale of unpunished sex crime. Time
Magazine
reported in
   September 1945: "Our own army and the British army along with ours
have done
   their share of looting and raping ... we too are considered an
army
of rapists."

   The British and American publics share a sunny view of the second
world war. The
   evil of Auschwitz and Dachau, turned inside out, clothes the
conflict in a shiny
   virtue. Movies, popular histories and political speeches frame the
war as a
   symbol of Anglo-American courage, with the Red Army's central role
forgotten.
   This was, we believe, "a war for democracy". Americans believe
that
they fought
   the war to rescue the world. For apologists of the British Empire,
such as Niall
   Ferguson, the war was an ethical bath where the sins of centuries
of conquest,
   slavery and exploitation were expiated. We are marked forever as
"the good
   guys"and can all happily chant "Two world wars and one world cup."

   All this seems innocent fun, but patriotic myths have sharp edges.
The "good
   war" against Hitler has underwritten 60 years of warmaking. It has
become an
   ethical blank cheque for British and US power. We claim the right
to bomb, to
   maim, to imprison without trial on the basis of direct and
implicit
appeals to
   the war against fascism.

   When we fall out with such tyrant friends as Noriega, Milosevic or
Saddam we
   rebrand them as "Hitler". In the "good war" against them, all bad
things become
   forgettable "collateral damage". The devastation of civilian
targets in Serbia
   or Iraq, torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, the war crime of
collective
   punishment in Falluja, fade to oblivion as the "price of
democracy".

   Our democratic imperialism prefers to forget that fascism had
important
   Anglo-American roots. Hitler's dream was inspired, in part, by the
British
   Empire. In eastern Europe, the Nazis hoped to make their America
and Australia,
   where ethnic cleansing and slave labour created a frontier for
settlement. In
   western Europe, they sought their India from which revenues,
labour
and soldiers
   might be extracted.

   American imperialism in Latin America gave explicit precedents for
Germany's
   and Japan's claims of supremacy in their neighbouring regions. The
British
   and Americans were key theorists of eugenics and had made racial
segregation
   respectable. The concentration camp was a British invention, and
in
Iraq and
   Afghanistan the British were the first to use air power to repress
partisan
   resistance. The Luftwaffe - in its assault on Guernica, and later
London and
   Coventry - paid homage to Bomber Harris's terror bombing of the
Kurds in the
   1920s.

   We forget, too, that British and US elites gave aid to the
fascists. President
   Bush's grandfather, prosecuted for "trading with the enemy" in
1942, was one of
   many powerful Anglo-Americans who liked Mussolini and Hitler and
did what they
   could to help. Appeasement as a state policy was only the tip of
an
iceberg of
   practical aid to these dictatorships. Capital and technology
flowed
freely, and
   fascist despots received dignified treatment in Washington and
London. Henry
   Ford made Hitler birthday gifts of 50,000 marks.

   We least like to remember that our side also committed war crimes
in the 1940s.
   The destruction of Dresden, a city filled with women, children,
the
elderly and
   the wounded, and with no military significance, is only the best
known of the
   atrocities committed by our bombers against civilian populations.
We know about
   the notorious Japanese abuse of prisoners of war, but do not
remember the
   torture and murder of captured Japanese. Edgar Jones, an
"embedded"
Pacific war
   correspondent, wrote in 1946: "'We shot prisoners in cold blood,
wiped out
   hospitals, strafed lifeboats, killed or mistreated enemy
civilians,
finished
   off the enemy wounded, tossed the dying into a hole with the dead,
and in the
   Pacific boiled flesh off enemy skulls to make table ornaments."

   After 1945, we borrowed many fascist methods. Nuremberg only
punished a handful
   of the guilty; most walked free with our help. In 1946, Project
Paperclip
   secretly brought more than 1,000 Nazi scientists to the US. Among
their ranks
   were Kurt Blome, who had tested nerve gas at Auschwitz, and Konrad
Schaeffer,
   who forced salt into victims at Dachau. Other experiments at mind
control via
   drugs and surgery were folded into the CIA's Project Bluebird.
Japan's Dr Shiro
   Ishii, who had experimented with prisoners in Manchuria, came to
Maryland to
   advise on bio-weapons. Within a decade of British troops
liberating
Belsen, they
   were running their own concentration camps in Kenya to crush the
Mau Mau. The
   Gestapo's torture techniques were borrowed by the French in
Algeria, and then
   disseminated by the Americans to Latin American dictatorships in
the 60s and
   70s. We see their extension today in the American camps in Cuba
and
Diego
   Garcia.

   War has a brutalising momentum. This is the moral of Taken By
Force, which shows
   how American soldiers became increasingly indiscriminate in their
sexual
   violence and military authorities increasingly lax in its
prosecution. Even as
   we remember the evils of nazism, and the courage of those who
defeated it,
   we should begin to remember the second world war with less self-
satisfaction.
   We might, in particular, learn to distrust those who use it to
justify
   contemporary warmongering.

   • Richard Drayton is senior lecturer in history at Cambridge
University.

                Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

[Loengrin]

Prodavaca magle i đubreta ima i među običnim narodom.

Šta rade ljudi koji znaju bolje od toga?
Valjda su globalni mir zamenili za sobni, a svoja velika dela zamenili ogorčenim tihim psovkama uz duplo više glasnih izvinjenja zbog istih.

U stvari skoro su me neki ljudi ubeđivali (i to pametni pristojni ljudi)
kako treba:
- da se borim za domovinu, ali ne i za jezik, kulturu i tradiciju
- da treba da poštujem sebe, ali ne treba da se čuvam
- da svaki problem rešavam sukobom i rušenjem, a ne dogovorom i građenjem (po sistemu, gledaj sebe, šta te boli)
- da verujemo u ljudske slobode, ali da pri tom radi sporta ili zbog neke nesigurnosti treba da osudim svakog ko se od mene (nas) razlikuje

Svašta me savetuju ljudi ovih dana, ne baš tim rečima, ali u tom stilu, baš onespokojavajuće.    (majke mi)

[IM]

Svašta me savetuju ljudi ovih dana, ne baš tim rečima, ali u tom stilu, baš onespokojavajuće.    (majke mi)

Jednostavno, ne veruj im! Ja bih, na primer, svakome savetovao sve upravo suprotno, da me nešto neko pita. Trudim se da živim po upravo suprotnim principima. Nekad vidim da mi ne uspeva baš sasvim, ali, veruj mi, ne uspeva ni tvojim isfrustriranim savetodavcima.

[Loengrin]

Hvala! Vidim da ti je priča poznata   a meni je nekad žao tih isfrustriranih ljudi što sebi postavljaju tako gruba pravila.

Ono što je meni na prvom mestu je da ne dam da me loše stvari menjaju već jedino dobre i to samo ako nemaju tendenciju da se prozle.
Nikada ne generalizujem, pa tako:
- mi nisu svi muškarci isti
- mi nisu sva deca slaaatka (već mali ljudi)
- ne očekujem da svako s kim želim bliže da se upoznam mora da bude na mom nivou (apsurd - moj nivo - tja)
- ne tražim da svi prožive ista sr... da bi smeli ravnopravno da pričaju o mojima
- ne verujem u tabu teme ali ne dokazujem to vulgarnošću
- verujem i u mnoge stvari koje još uvek nisam srela ili nikada nisu ni dokazane
- ne verujem da je čovek u biti sam, jer ko tako misli u stvari nikada nije dobro naćulio uši
- izbegavam da odem u jednu krajnost bežeći od druge
- ne smatram da treba biti nežan samo prema bliskim osobama, malim životinjama i deci
- uvek pravim razliku između nesreće i tuge ili sreće i radosti
- ne verujem da je mir uslovni refleks ljudi na rat

Verujem da o dobru treba pričati svakog dana kako ga ne bismo zaboravili.

[IM]

Pa ako si ovo sama zaključila, onda si dovoljno mudra da bi tvoji "savetodavci" trebalo da se stide svoje drskosti da te savetuju.  

Ako si negde čula ili pročitala, to je u svakom slučaju dovoljno da te smiri. Oni nisu u pravu. Ti si u pravu!

Mada, opet... ko sam ja? Ne treba ni da dozvolis da se ljudi nadglasavaju oko tvojih stavova. Naći ćeš bez problema desetak vikača koji će odmah stati na njihovu stranu.

[Loengrin]

Nisam ja bespomoćnai i umem da branim svoje stavove, ali kakva bih to osoba bila da mi nije žao kad čujem gluposti od drugih i to u velikoj porciji, naročito od meni bliskih ljudi.