Non-violence, the world and Lybia.

It is often thought that revolutions are bloody, tragic events that kill so many for nothing, in the end. Regimes that have sprung up from these revolutions haven't always played up to the expectations, and that's an understatement! However non-violent revolutions do exist: Poland and Checkoslovakia cracked communism, South Africa made a transition to a fully democratic state, Iran in 2009 made it onto the streets and spread the word across the globe; this word may have been a powerful antecedent to the Egyptian, Omani, Suadi, Syrian, Bahraini and all the other revolutions taking place right now. When non-violence strikes, no-one knows how to respond. The strike isn't dripping in blood but rage, and hope. Martin Luther King was one of those men who could rally thousands for a cause we all think is just now, he harmed no-one. Gandhi too, as well as Mandela, Suu Kyi, the Dalai Lama...
Wheteher a revolution needs a single figure leading the way is arguable, there is no single person in Egypt, the collective is acting as a unity though.
I think one of the reasons the US has attacked Libya is because it is weaker in terms of military prowess and influence than Egypt or Iran are. However it is also because Libya is being torn by war. The fact that there is a war allows foreign troops to come in and restore the situation, save resources and then take care of the people, in that order. If we want a change in society, that the world as a whole cannot oppose, it's through a means that the people will agree with, namely non-violence. A revolution from below isn't a revolution from below unless it is brought about with the direct contribution of the average person. Someone with a gun isn;t an average person; most people are too scared of guns and are too opposed to killing to ever use one and what's more, guns are traditionally and historically carried and used by men. A revolution with a gun would thus likely create a society in which women would have little representation, again patriarchy. The person carrying the gun also has the subsequent ability to enforce obedience and this puts him in a position of authority.
So if we want a new society, without patriarchy, inequality and violence or a constant fear of it, it can only be brought to us through non-violence. Non-violence is the only practical way to achieve a non-violent society.

On the other hand a revolution won through war can only result in either the ruling group being massacred, as in Rwanda, or being made into a minority who live with less rights and under constant fear. This society would thus fail to be egalitarian.

Imagine.

On Education and Realism.

I was listening to a post the other day in which there was Johann Hari, my favourite journalist. There was a brief mention on education which I found interesting. Our system isn't fair and equitable. It is clear that many people don't have the chance to finish high school because their upbringing hasn't put enough importance into it, the same with university. Of course university isn't for everyone, many shouldn't be here and many who don't go lead much happier lives than us under and post-grads will.
My point though is, our system isn't egalitarian because we don't expect everyone to have education. We look at homeless and assume they dropped out at 12 when they started doing drugs; but worse, when we see a middle-aged woman working in a convenience store, we don't expect her kids to go to university, or that she did. So we are almost automatically subjecting the children of this poor hypothetical woman, who is probably working her arse off to provide as good an education as she can to them, to a lack of future in our current society. This is a reality. We tend to make differences in our heads of what constitutes a good job and which one is bad. Even though in the future we won't have as many psychologists as those studying to be one, nor will we have as many english teachers, people still see university as the front door to a well-paid job instead of a personal desire to learn more. I feel this is misguided, many will feel unfulfilled because they won't be able to compete. We should wait to the future though to watch the outcome.

On a point aside and unrelated, I believe political realists are those people who don't believe change is possible, they don't see into the achievements of our past and they cannot accept that we can break out of a so called human nature. On the other hand, idealists are already in the process of changing this world which has so many wrongs. Needless to say I'm an idealist.

Libya and Europe.

The revolutions in Northern Africa have recently escaped our news, first because of Christchurch and now Japan. However we all know that libya is still struggling in a situation of de facto civil war.

Gaddafi is being told to leave by the EU and the US. He now seems to have the upper hands against the rebels, who at one point in time occupied more than half the country. However Gaddafi won't budge because of some western threats, the US and the EU may have to get involved. For democracy of course, or that's what they'll tell us... Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa and it has significant amounts of natural gas as well. Any US and/or European involvement will be for two reasons: to protect the sacred tenet of democracy which would stabilize the country and in the short run protect Europe and for the large oil companies to win a new share in a new land with the possibility of finding new reserves. Again it is back to oil. That black crud we all rely on.
The authorities may even be open about it and say that they're going in to stabilize oil prices as well as democracy; the barrel of brent has gone up by more than 25% in the last couple of weeks. Any involvement will also be for the oil, for the markets and for the people. Those who own everything we have and need of course.
Don't get me wrong, I also believe that it is sad that Libyans face shooting if they walk out of their houses and that bombs will be dropped on protesters but with direct foreign involvement, Libyans will become Iraqis with another name. The rebels are still strong and every day that passes more join the forces. I believe they can win, if we want to help, we should give them arms and medical supplies but no doctors unless asked and especially no soldiers. Libya doesn't want to be a colony again.

Elsewhere in the Middle East the US is more influential. In Bahrain human rights groups are under threat, in Yemen the protesters are being attacked by police. The US is losing its grip on the region just as it wants to take troops out of Iraq, and while American democracy does seem to be winning, the new governments won't kowtow as easily.

Media as structurally racist.

We are all affected by the media, as we watch the news on TV or some chat-show, or we turn on our computer screens we are given information that, to us unknowingly, can be one-sided. We are also wary of walking down streets on a Saturday night by ourselves, or scared of sirens which remind us of a war we've never been in. In Port Chalmers the fire siren whales as if it were alerting of a bomb-strike in World War Two, it sends a chill down my spine every time I hear it, most of the time of which is just to test it, to see whether this relic still works. The RSA building is close by it, I wonder what they think...

Everytime I hear a siren now though, it reminds me of Christchurch and the chaos after the earthquake. We have been fed so much info that I find it disrespectful. On the day and for days afterwards they had a 24 hour program about the developments, or lack thereof. While it does inform those who have family they haven't heard of, they probably just wonder if it was one of theirs who was pulled out of the rubble of a bookshop. During the two or three days of repeated footage, we only really heard of the bad stories, or just the CBD. And that was on because of the B. Suburbs remained uncommunicated and I remember reading an article about a group of 20 living in a garage who, after a week, still hadn't been visited by any emergency personnel. They were of course looking out for the B. People in the Pyne Gould are dead, those in an eastern suburb only lost and hungry, possibly infected. Who should we try save? The dead or the living? I found it disrespectful. But I guess the New Zealand media hardly ever has any big stories to comment on.

I went to an open lecture the other day on Media and racism. I didn't think it was all that great as it only focused on the anti-Indian riots that took place in some Australian universities last year and the year before. However the talk did raise some interesting points.

The media, in my eyes, is a structurally nationalistic system in many senses. Each country puts more focus onto the particular country it is based in than any other. This makes perfect sense, the citizens watching or reading that piece of media are more likely to be interested in a catastrophe up the road than one elsewhere. It is racist too though, economically if that makes sense. The west payed a lot of attention to Australia when the floods were devastating the Queensland cities and coasts, but no attention was payed to Brazil and even less to Sri Lanka. I think this is because there isn't as much money put into these economies and Australians are culturally much more similar to Europe or the US. The same happened with the Chinese earhquake. It stopped existing once the bigger one rattled Japan. Yes it was larger, but China left the maps pretty quickly. Those damn reds!

The media is sensationalist because that is what people want. We would rather hear about a wedding than about an election, even though the outcomes in South Sudan and Niger are uplifting for democracy. But that raises the issue of Africa. Don't they just fight all the time? Aren't they just too corrupt, maybe too tribal still?

Should public tv spend more time on world issues? Should its programming be more welcoming to cultural minorites? Should it be that unbiased precedent the public would want to see?

Sagacitas, Veritas et Libertas.