by smallpoxgirl » Thu 16 Jun 2005, 01:40:51
Wow! Great thread JD! Would have never figured you and me to agree on something like this.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John Denver', 'P')overty confuses me. We're supposed to mobilize and get rid of poverty, but weren't the indians living in poverty?
I think what you are hitting at is the essential concept of indigenism.
Capitalist says "Industrial society is good. I have the money. Don't change anything."
Leftist/Communist says"Industrial society is good, but the way the goods are being split up is unfair. Some people aren't getting enough goods (i.e they are in poverty). The government should decide the distribution of goods."
Indigenist says "Things such as community integrity, ecological integrity, self sufficiency, and self-determination are more important than goods. They can't be quantified and assigned a price and thus don't get taken into consideration in an industrial society. If someone has those things, then goods are unimportant."
I saw a study one time where they looked at all the materials that the average person in a certain tribe would have hunted or gathered in a year. Berries, pelts, meat, etc. They added up what it would cost to buy those things and it came to like $60,000. The capitalist and the leftist both look at the indigenous person and say he poor because he doesn't have any money or any manufactured goods. The indigenist looks at him and see a very wealthy man.
This has been a tremendous problem with the neoliberal agenda. The neo-liberals looks at Mexico's subsistance farmers and see poverty. They don't have any money. They don't have any manufactured goods. Never mind that they have communally owned land, strong communities, and an ability to make or barter for most every thing that they need. So the neo-liberals pressure the Mexican government to break up the communal land holdings to "allow" the farmers to sell their land and make money. Combined with a drop in the price of farm goods due to NAFTA and suddenly the farmers end up selling their land to agribusiness companies. The former farmers now have no place to live, no way of feeding themselves, and no intact community to turn to. These are the people that end up in the machiadoras making Gap T-shirts for $0.10 per hour. It's only once they are forced to rely on the market economy to meet their needs that those people really become poor.
I think poverty has two meanings. In some parts of the world, poverty means lack of housing, food, or water. Working in the machiadoras is a much worse lifestyle than being a Ute with a functioning tribe. Those people are, I think, unargueably in poverty. Beyond meeting basic needs, poverty is relative. We are taught through many means, notably advertising, to value ourselves based on our possessions and consumer goods. We have so adopted this definition that we see it as cruel to deprive someone else of consumer goods. Having adopted this definition of our value as a person, we looks at those around us to try to decide how valuable we are. Someone that might seem very poor in certain parts of the US could be a king in Nigeria. In the US that person will experience poverty(the mental state) whereas in Nigeria they might be quite happy.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('agni', 'T')here is nothing uplifting in poverty for a family to lose a kid because they couldn't buy a medicine worth 50 cents or where the mother has to whore herself to pay for his (a girl child might not be worth it) medicine or a person to bleed to death because they dont have money to make an emergency call
I think you're setting up an impossible standard here. Modern medicine will soak up as much money as you throw at it. Oregon had a very beautiful system for providing medical care for everyone in the state. Then a kid "needed" a transplant operation, and everyone pitched a fit because the state was "letting" the kid die. They hired a lawyer, and the whole system fell apart. Medicine is just like everything else. It is a relative need. If you live in a society where everyone has scabies, it never dawns on you to complain about them. If you live in a society where no one has scabies, you rush to the doctor when you get them. If need be, you prostitute yourself to get your child treated.