Recent Reading: "Unbowed: A Memoir" by Wangari Maathai

So many times in my life, I have been fortunate enough to have had experiences that I was not at all ready to grasp. I was too naive and inexperienced to really know what was going on, what I was doing or what I should have been doing. That's how I feel when I think about my summer in the Governor's Honors Program, my first trip to Washington, or even my work at the U.S. Institute of Peace. What this means in practical terms is that I have to learn about these experiences retrospectively.

What I've been learning about lately is my trip to Kenya in December of 2007 with the College of Charleston group Project Harambee. I traveled to Kenya for ten days with 18 other students to build a health clinic for an AIDS orphanage in rural Kitui, in arid East Kenya.

(During an impromptu afternoon vocabulary lesson at the Emmanuel Children's Home.)

As I've recently blogged, my past appreciation for development and the environment were shallow at best. Although I left just before ethnic violence broke out over the disputed presidential election, I didn't understand Kenya's colonial history and past fraudulent elections. Though I was introduced to a strong woman, Mama Esther, who was instrumental in saving so many children from parentless households, I didn't understand the history of African women or their colonial backslide that changed the definition of their traditional role to a rather Western "seen and not heard" understanding.

Reading Nobel Laureate Wangari Maathai's memoirs have made me think a lot about Project Harambee and my time in Kenya. I was so excited to see Kitui mentioned in print, and to read about the delicious mandazi that I enjoyed daily for breakfast at the orphanage. It's interesting to note threads that were discussed in my classes this past semester, from Kenya in Cold War politics to the "trivialization" (as Maathai puts it) of traditional African practices that in fact are more beneficial for sustainable development. These superficial connections aside, I feel a stronger link between myself and Maathai (though I hope it's not to presumptuous of me to compare myself to someone who is quickly becoming my role model). Maathai grew up in colonial Kenya, largely unaware of the problems around her. I find comfort in the fact that she learned to question her faith, her government, development, and the environment as she grew older--maybe she too felt like she had been too naive to fully grasp the experiences of her youth in any way other than retrospectively.

(Central Kenyan highlands)

I am in awe of Maathai's audacity in standing up to the government, and her (from what I gather, anyway) very early understanding of the links between development and the environment. She was at the forefront of the sustainable development movement with her 1977 "Save the Land Harambee" (Harambee is Swahili for "Let us pull together," a slogan which was popularized by Kenya's first president, Jomo Kenyatta--and, of course, borrowed by the CofC group). The idea behind her crusade was that rural people, but women especially, should germinate seeds of local native species to combat deforestation (and the ensuing shortages in water as the root system which held the water tables steady was wrecked) and the spread of monoculture (tea, coffee, etc.); she also advocated a return to more healthful local plants over the white grains and starches that (though easier to prepare) contributed to malnutrition and soil erosion. As the Green Belt movement grew, it encompassed issues of human and political rights; she encouraged local populations to discuss these issues in native languages at Green Belt meetings and seminars and required records to be kept both in local languages and English.

This is genius. Brilliant! This project, which now operates throughout East Africa, combines all aspects of what is called "post-development" theory: women's equality, respect for local traditions, environmental consciousness, improved governance... I'm absolutely in awe. I had no idea about this while I was in Kenya, but I so wish I had been able to stop at the Green Belt movement headquarters while we were in Nairobi. I've been dreaming again about the beauty of Maathai's central highlands, where I was lucky enough to spend an evening around a fire and a morning in the chilly mist, overlooking a lush green gorge with a cup of strong Kenyan coffee. I have to admit that I've been fantasizing about returning to spend a year (or more) of my life in such a place, pumping my water each morning, harvesting arrowroots and millet like Maathai did in her youth. I'd be willing to bet that after reading Maathai's book, you'd want to join me.

Postscript:
"In addition, I saw how important culture was to the larger goals of the Green Belt Movement and to managing our natural resources efficiently, sustainably, and equitably. Many aspects of the cultures our ancestors practiced had protected Kenya's environment. Before the Europeans arrived, the peoples of Kenya did not look at trees and see timber, or at elephants and see commercial ivory stock, or at cheetahs and see beautiful skins for sale. But when Kenya was colonized and we encountered Europeans, with their knowledge, technology, understanding, religion, and culture--all of it new--we converted our values into a cash economy like theirs. Everything was now perceived as having a monetary value. As we were to learn, if you can sell it, you can forget about protecting it. Using this analysis, we integrated the question of culture into our seminars and eventually wondered whether culture was a missing link in Africa's development."
-Wangari Maathai, "Unbowed: A Memoir" p. 175

War as Peace-Promotion

On September 10th of this year, I posted an entry entitled "War as Terrorism Prevention" discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of the use of violence in preventing future violent acts. In thinking over President Obama's recent Nobel Prize acceptance speech, I am drawn to revisit this topic.

In his insightful speech that shows a deep understanding of violence--from ethnic to religious, worldwide--President Obama said the following:

"We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life's work, I am living testimony to the moral force of nonviolence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive, in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King."*

This struck me especially after having spent a semester in a special topics course on Gandhi and King. If I were to extrapolate, I would imagine that Gandhi would be quite disappointed with the speech on the whole, arguing that by showing love, and being brave enough to lay our lives on the line for ahimsa, or non-violence, we would eventually come to live in peace. Nevertheless, I'm sure Gandhi would have approved of the message that "there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive," in his ideal of satyagraha, non-violent resistance. He made this point often in his writing.

Interestingly, while non-violence was not a cowardly response to oppression, Gandhi advocated violence as a superior alternative to being "emasculated" or humiliated (his gender issues are a topic for another post). Although Gandhi was not himself willing to relax his principles, and vowed he would rather be killed than retaliate, he was nonetheless a pragmatist. King, too, was a pragmatist in such matters. As we discussed several times in my class, he benefited from being an alternative to the violence that the (mostly Northern) followers of Malcolm X used to demand economic equality in cities where segregation was de jure instead of de facto.

There are some times when satyagraha cannot work. For example, Gandhi's writing to the Jews in Europe--keep in mind that he was a contemporary of the Second World War, mentioned in Obama's speech as a 'war for peace'--to follow his methods seems utterly foolish (this writing was before the atrocities of the Holocaust were widely known; according to my professor, he never commented on them but to express his regret afterwards--yet another sign of pragmatism). If you are facing an opponent whose goal is to kill you, letting yourself be killed is hardly an effective means of protest. It made sense in colonial India, and in the United States during the Civil Rights movement, because the oppressors were in some way dependent on the survival of the oppressed populations (think economics).

But, as much as it might have made sense, and as many times as Obama will draw on the widely-known symbolism of King, it can hardly be said that these methods were actually successful. England did decolonize, after centuries of rule, but in a bloody, brutal partition that left anywhere from 500,000 to two million Hindus and Muslims dead and injured. And while amendments have been passed, and the red hills of Georgia have seen the sons of former slaves and former slave owners sitting together, the de jure segregation that so angered Malcolm X is still around.

That leads to quite a depressing conclusion: violence won't bring peace, and non-violence won't bring peace...

Right away. And Obama, who after all initially supported the war in Afghanistan as the "right" war compared to Iraq, clearly has a ways to go before he really embodies the pacifist ideals of the great men to whom he paid homage.

Nevertheless, like these men, knows the value of pragmatism. Both King and Gandhi knew that their ideals of peace and understanding would take a long time, anyhow. Perhaps, then, the lesson to be taken away is not one of possibility or impossibility, but patience and compromise.


Postscript
"Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth."
-President Obama

*You can read Obama's speech, or watch it, here: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/10/obama.transcript/index.html

From the Afghan Women's Writing Project: 1+1=1

I'm so glad to have found the Afghan Women's Writing Projet blog at http://awwproject.wordpress.com/, and I hope after reading the post I have copied below you will check out the website for more. The project was started by an American novelist as a means for Afghan women to spread their thoughts to Afghan men and the world at large. They receive help from English teachers in America, but the main goal is to develop their voices as writers and explain their lives in Afghanistan today. The women who post do so against great risks and in complete secrecy.

The writing is so melancholy, but so powerful. Reading through just a few of Roya's posts, I am blown away by her strength and the strength of the women around her. Her writing style reminds me of my own in lines with repetition, in the subtle humor and the apologetic anger. But her voice comes in as her own, loud and clear despite the distance, brave in the face of all of the death, distruction, and disappointment.

---

I have faced a lot of challenges with my education. I know I am not alone in this. There are other hearts that are disturbed and suffer as I did.
I remember how I much I wanted to go to school. In my first class, I had my big bag full of books and notebooks, and my neat and clean clothes. I felt myself big from that time and loved being intelligent. I studied four years at school. But my school was closed in the middle of my fourth year because of war and rockets. The government announced that, without passing the final exam, we were promoted into the next class. My fifth and sixth classes passed with me coming and going to school while rockets fell like rain from the sky. I was not afraid of punishment from my teachers, or my parents’ anger or loss of my toys. I was scared of the voices of rockets: sheew, sheew, sheew.
While I was in seventh grade, the Taliban came and I stayed at home. My dreams of graduating from school meant nothing to them.
Students study twelve years to graduate from school but I spent seventeen years. All I desired was to study very hard and to have the best and intelligent teachers.
Until tenth grade, we didn’t have chairs to sit on or boards to write on. We didn’t even have a classroom. We studied under the hot sun or the spring rain. In my class, everyone brought small mats or pieces of logs to sit on, but I didn’t. My house was far from school and it was too heavy to bring something. Sand and small stones were my floor and my comfortable chair.
We didn’t have books to study at home or in the class. Only the teachers had books and we took notes. The only work I was doing at school was writing, writing, writing, so it is no wonder I am a writer now!
The government didn’t pay attention to education or teachers’ salaries. Most of our teachers were just school graduates, not bachelors in specific fields. The teacher who knew biology was teaching geography and the math teacher was the religious teacher. The English teacher had problems with the English alphabet—she was always complaining because the English alphabet had both small and capital letters!
It was not the fault of our teachers; with all these problems they were trying to be kind and teach the best they could. The cause was that our country was born in war. The cause is war, always war…
In tenth grade, I tried to prepare for University. I needed to study very hard and I did. At the same time, I was teaching English during English periods and translating Dari poems for my classmates during Dari periods. With a group of students, I created the first library in our school; members of our team brought books from their homes. I had some newspapers and magazines my father brought me. We created a department that was small but very good: it had a cooking section, knitting, poetry, and science. We also had charts of the best students and I was the first girl who hung my picture on the wall to encourage girls to do their best in education. We also created a small sports team. We didn’t have a sport facility—we didn’t even have a ball. But we could run. On the first day I started to run; at the end of the day my legs were not mine, I felt such pain.
The only thing which was very important for girls was to marry. A group of my classmates were engaged and they invited us to their wedding parties. After marriage, they couldn’t continue to study. Only some girls in our class were thinking high and dreaming of going to university.
After three years of hardship and studying hard, I entered Kabul University. I thought university would be very different from school; I thought the teachers would be the best of the best, but it was not so. Only 5.5% of our teachers were teachers we could count on to be kind, intelligent, keen scholars. Most of others blocked the way and did not promote the young generation. They brought up young students to be slow learners, lazy and crazy…
The education system in our country is always the same old system. Nothing is new here; always 1+1=1. Our country has 5000 years of history behind it but it didn’t grow up. It is stopped and has stopped growing like the mother who can’t birth a child.
But I still was happy to wake up every day to study; I learned a lot, I learned from nothing. I discovered most of the students at the university who lived in the dormitory didn’t have money to pay for study materials. Most of them, 78%, spent $20 they got from begging until the end of the year.
I was always fasting, no surprise that a piece of bread and a bottle of water was my breakfast and lunch. After four years, I passed my classes the university. At the end of my last semester, I had my first new clothes. I celebrated Eid with new clothes and I felt very happy.
When you read these lines, please don’t get me wrong. I am not complaining; I am satisfied. I love life’s pains, it is sweet, it is sweet. I just want to paint the life of Afghan students. I paint the life of a young generation that lives with poverty and is interested in studying hard. If you give them a chance, only a small chance, they will prove they are the best.
War took everything from us. This young generation is a son of war. I am a son of war, and the only thing war still can’t take from us and couldn’t take, is Hope. I was hopeful. I am hopeful and I will be. I will study for my Ph.D. and dream, dream, and dream.
By Roya

*My description of the project was adapted from the Al-Jazeera English story at http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/12/200912675616888150.html.

From The New York Times: "We May Be Born With an Urge to Help"

Indeed, it is in our biological nature, not our political institutions, that we should put our trust, in his view. Our empathy is innate and cannot be changed or long suppressed. “In fact,” Dr. de Waal writes, “I’d argue that biology constitutes our greatest hope. One can only shudder at the thought that the humaneness of our societies would depend on the whims of politics, culture or religion.”

The basic sociability of human nature does not mean, of course, that people are nice to each other all the time. Social structure requires that things be done to maintain it, some of which involve negative attitudes toward others. The instinct for enforcing norms is powerful, as is the instinct for fairness. Experiments have shown that people will reject unfair distributions of money even it means they receive nothing.

“Humans clearly evolved the ability to detect inequities, control immediate desires, foresee the virtues of norm following and gain the personal, emotional rewards that come from seeing another punished,” write three Harvard biologists, Marc Hauser, Katherine McAuliffe and Peter R. Blake, in reviewing their experiments with tamarin monkeys and young children.

If people do bad things to others in their group, they can behave even worse to those outside it. Indeed the human capacity for cooperation “seems to have evolved mainly for interactions within the local group,” Dr. Tomasello writes.

Sociality, the binding together of members of a group, is the first requirement of defense, since without it people will not put the group’s interests ahead of their own or be willing to sacrifice their lives in battle. Lawrence H. Keeley, an anthropologist who has traced aggression among early peoples, writes in his book “War Before Civilization” that, “Warfare is ultimately not a denial of the human capacity for cooperation, but merely the most destructive expression of it.”

The roots of human cooperation may lie in human aggression. We are selfish by nature, yet also follow rules requiring us to be nice to others.

“That’s why we have moral dilemmas,” Dr. Tomasello said, “because we are both selfish and altruistic at the same time.”


You can read the full article online at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01human.html?pagewanted=2&em

More as Better, Continued

I recently attended a talk given by Dr. Benjamin Powell of Suffolk University. The main argument of the talk was this: People who work in sweatshops overseas choose to do so because the money they make is often far greater than the national average income, thereby protecting them from less desirable jobs such as prostitution or mendicancy. Opposing sweatshops will put these people out of their jobs (into worse situations), while supporting them will lead to eventual economic development of these countries.

On the surface, this argument is sound. After all, the great developed societies of today, such as America and Britain, started out as sweatshop economies. However, this simplistic definition is easily overturned by a multi-disciplinary look at development.

Economics: According to Dr. Powell, an increase in sweatshops means an increase in competition between employers, which raises "human capital" and income levels. For example, if Gap pays Bangladeshi workers $.13 per day (as is the average for sweatshop workers according to Dr. Powell's data), Nike would have to pay at least $.14 to attract those workers. More international megacorporations means more money going to workers, who now will have an exploitable skill (or human capital, in economic-speak).
While there's little doubt that more and more corporations are interested in exploiting the labor of the world's destitute, I find that this theory doesn't take Bangladeshis much further than their current income of merely cents per day. Companies are interested in cheap labor, so why would they open a factory near another factory? Why not try another city, town, or village to keep costs down?
The argument about human capital is also a troubling one. Sweatshop workers barely make enough money to pay for food, so forget about health care or education for their children. What sort of human capital are they amassing, for themselves and future generations, besides the ability to sew sweaters and sneakers?

History: America (after it got rid of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans) had a vast amount of territory rich in resources and decidedly capable of feeding its large population as major cities turned to industry. Britain, an island of which the same cannot be said, colonized for its resources as it turned to industry. These options are not available to developing countries, many of which are resource-poor and/or facing a depletion of arable land.

International Politics: Furthermore, Dr. Powell's theory operates in a neoliberalist's utopia. The countries where corporations seek out exploitable labor are subject to the policies of international financial institutions (or IFIs, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund). For example, one aspect of these Structural Adjustment Programs forces countries to devalue their currency (thereby making exports less expensive and more desirable, but making imports more expensive for the already impoverished populations) in order to receive more loans--which, actually, are used to pay back wealthy lender countries for the interest on previous loans. The same Structural Adjustment Policies call for improved governance and democracy, but how democratic can a country be if it must block fair wages for its people in the World Trade Organization (and would any people democratically choose to be exploited?) so that it can continue to attract sweatshops in order to pay back international debt?

Environment: Dr. Powell's talk dove off the assumption that a world full of industrialized, developed countries is possible and even desirable. In many ways, the earth has already reached its breaking point and is operating beyond levels that allow long-term sustainability for life on this planet. The earth simply cannot sustain a world full of New York Cities and Detroits.

Anthropology: Dr. Powell mentioned the greater prestige many sweatshop workers gain from working indoors. I couldn't help but wonder, however, how much the superiority from working indoors is a cultural graft from the West, and how many traditional and indigenous practices have simply evaporated in the face of industrial hegemony. Furthermore, what effects do the long hours, dangerous conditions, and lack of democratic rights in sweatshop have on societies now dependent on them?

Dr. Powell nearly ridiculed movements to boycott sweatshop labor, saying that these movements would deprive sweatshop workers of their best alternative for employment. He suggested that companies may (without government coercion, of course) be moved to ethically brand merchandise made in sweatshops so that people would be more likely to purchase goods made by destitute foreigners. However, judging by his own arguments that companies will look to make a maximum profit, I don't understand what would make these companies bestow the increased earnings upon their desperate workers in sweatshops when they could just pocket them instead.

In my opinion, the problem will not be solved without taking a close look at the international aspects of the economy. As much as Dr. Powell would like to see a world without governments, the people in these sweatshops are not being guided only by the invisible hand of the market--they are being pulled under the waves of debt that keep their nations from progressing.

Besides an amendment to international debt policies (or the cancellation of third-world debt), though, I think a solution lies in buying less for more. The economists in the audience (if I've managed to keep any up to this point) are groaning, I'm sure. There isn't a mandate for them to care about anyone or anything but themselves. The destitution and despair that Dr. Powell sees are just part of the neoliberal game, and as luck would have it the people in the Global North were born with an advantage that means they can make the rules. Perhaps they function with the misplaced American ethic that hard work necessarily leads to success--despite the fact that many of the people of the Global South have no education, little food, no health care, and nearly no voice in their government policies, they should be able to find opportunities for advancement (enter sweatshops).

But think about this: People who are destitute and desperate are far more likely to be recruited by violent extremists, and these industrializing policies are going to lead to more and more pollution around the world. Sometimes, the problems that theoretically will be solved by a magical invisible hand need more of a helping hand to prevent consequences form showing up on our domestic doorstep. If you have to put it in economic terms, like Dr. Powell, think of it as an investment in our collective future.

More as Better

"I'm more interested in development and politics--the environment just isn't 'my thing.'"

How utterly foolish of me to have had this exact thought so many times in the past. The environment, defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online as "the circumstances, objects, or conditions by which one is surrounded," is inextricable from any field or career. The environment, the earth, cannot 'not be my thing.' I am, as you are, surrounded by it. Politics or art or history do not take place in some environment-less vacuum. The things we wear, eat, use--they all come from the environment. It has to be everyone's thing.

In thinking about this, I remembered learning about Locke in my Politics and Political Inquiry class freshman year. While he does think the earth is everyone's thing, he has some particular ideas about how property comes about through its exploitation.

"Sect. 27. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. ...

Sect. 31. It will perhaps be objected to this, that if gathering the acorns, or other fruits of the earth, &c.; makes a right to them, then any one may ingross as much as he will. To which I answer, Not so. The same law of nature, that does by this means give us property, does also bound that property too. God has given us all things richly, 1 Tim. vi. 12. is the voice of reason confirmed by inspiration. But how far has he given it us? To enjoy. As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy. And thus, considering the plenty of natural provisions there was a long time in the world, and the few spenders; and to how small a part of that provision the industry of one man could extend itself, and ingross it to the prejudice of others; especially keeping within the bounds, set by reason, of what might serve for his use; there could be then little room for quarrels or contentions about property so established."

He goes on to explain that, since there is an abundance of resources, man cannot possibly take away from another's property if each uses that which he needs to sustain himself.*

As Gilbert Rist explains in his book The History of Development, the idea that the environment can be exploited to limitless ends is a rather new one. It was not until the Enlightenment at the end of the seventeenth century that Modernists began to assert that the development of mankind would escape the Aristotelian rise and fall or the Augustinian view of a Godly end of the world.**

With the onset of the Industrial Revolution nearly a century later, the view of infinite progress was solidified. Men could do more, see more, make more than they ever imagined possible, and nothing was stopping them from more, more, and even more than before. With the introduction of David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage, mercantilist policies had the theoretical backing that trade between nations, regardless of disparities in economic advancement, would be most beneficial if nations specialized in certain products. So European nations began taking more and more colonies, and exhorting more and more resources, pushing men and earth to keep producing so they could have more for less.

And that hasn't stopped in the era of globalization. People take for granted that more choices, more cultural interaction, more more more of everything, comes at a price. Many scientists agree that, "in spite of the world's improved technologies, the greater awareness, the stronger environment policies, many resource and pollution flows [have] grown beyond their sustainable limits."***

Why does that matter? You can put labor into the environment, come up with some new technologies, get what you "need" to survive--and who cares if you leave a little mess behind? Technology will come along to fix it, and man will just keep on progressing like he always has and is destined always to do.

It matters because nearly every piece of clothing you put on, every bite of food or sip of drink, comes at the expense of another. Maybe you, like me, don't always think about it in your pre-caffeine grogginess, but that cup of coffee you drink is keeping Ethiopian children out of school. The car you use to get to school is taking away someone's fresh air--your own, perhaps.

I don't mean to say that people should stop drinking coffee or driving cars. What I mean to say is that there are too many people who, like I did, think that environmentalism is someone else's crusade, that sustainability means using technology to create more solutions to problems technology has already caused. If you think about it, we don't really need more. What we have is enough--more than enough. And if, like me, development and politics are "your thing," then maybe its time to keep Locke in mind--to work for what you have, and not take away from others by taking more than you need.


*From John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter V: Of Property (1690). Accessed online at http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-a.html#CHAP.%20V.
**Rist, Gilbert. The History of Development: From Western Origins to Global Faith, 3rd ed. London: Zed Books Ltd. 2008. See especially Chapter 2: Metamorphoses of a Myth.
***From the introduction to Beyond the Limits to Growth, by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, and Jorgen Randers.

From The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development

"Principle 24: Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as necessary.

Principle 25: Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible."


-Passed by the United Nations General Assembly at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. Read the entire Rio Declaration here.