Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id j89GLsG13854; Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:21:54 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:21:54 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <s3216240.069@nmail.epcc.edu>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: "Andres Muro" <AndresM@epcc.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:1533] Re: UN Report: Parts of America Are as
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2
Status: O
Content-Length: 11451
Lines: 298
In light of the UN report and the impact of the hurricane, do we live in
a racist and classist society?
Many would argue that we don't because our system does not
intentionally take actions to prevent poor people and minorities from
improving their social, economic conditions. This argument is
questionable, however, assuming that this argument is correct, ie,
nobody intentionally discriminates against the poor or minorities, do we
live in a classist, racist society.
History, societies and events are no assessed by the intention of the
actors, but the consequences of the actions. So, we judge periods of
historical times, not by the intentions of Washington, Queen Elizabeth,
GW, Osama, but by the circumstances that were created.
Racism and classism are defined as the differential treatment or
consequences to a group given by certain circumstances. In other words,
if given some conditions, or events, one group is impacted more
negatively than another, then, there are social conditions that result
in the discrimination of the group that suffered adversely. If the
group that suffered more adversity are the poor, then we have a classist
society. If the group that suffered more adversity are an ethnic
minority, then we have racism, and so on and so for. Poverty is proof of
classism, because a group is already suffering adverse conditions that
they cannot overcome. Even if the intention of the society is to create
the conditions for people to overcome poverty, as long as a significant
group cannot overcome it, then we have a classist society.
Now, looking at the events in Louisiana, did black people suffered more
adversity than members of other ethnic groups, as a result of the
circumstances? the answer is a resounding yes. Therefore, we have a
racist society. Even if nobody wants to see blacks suffering and we all
love blacks like we love our moms, the fact that blacks suffered much
more adversity than other groups shows that we live in a racist society.
Another thing: racism is not determined from the point of view of those
in power, but from the perspective of the victims. If it were measured
by the point of view of those in power, then they will claim that we did
not have racism, because they did not intend to discriminate.
So, given the fact that we do live in a racist society according to the
analysis of the UN report and the consequences of the hurricane, what do
we do? A society must change the conditions so that those that suffer
more adversity than others stop suffering more adversity. It is as
simple as that. As long as we don't systematically work towards changing
the conditions so that some groups stop experiencing more adversity, we
will continue to be a racist society.
So, we can wear the labels proudly and admit that we are a bunch of
racists, classists and sexists, or we change the conditions and create
an egalitarian society.
What do you all think? How does this relate to literacy? Do minorities
have lower literacy achievement? Does this make us racist?
Andres
>>> macorley1@earthlink.net 9/8/2005 6:35:48 PM >>>
UN Hits Back at US in Report Saying Parts of America Are as Poor as
Third
World
By Paul Vallely
The Independent UK
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/090805L.shtml
Thursday 08 September 2005
Parts of the United States are as poor as the Third World, according
to
a shocking United Nations report on global inequality.
Claims that the New Orleans floods have laid bare a growing racial and
economic divide in the US have, until now, been rejected by the
American
political establishment as emotional rhetoric. But yesterday's UN
report
provides statistical proof that for many - well beyond those affected
by the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina - the great American Dream is an
ongoing
nightmare.
The document constitutes a stinging attack on US policies at home and
abroad in a fightback against moves by Washington to undermine next
week's
UN 60th anniversary conference which will be the biggest gathering of
world
leaders in history.
The annual Human Development Report normally concerns itself with the
Third World, but the 2005 edition scrutinises inequalities in health
provision inside the US as part of a survey of how inequality worldwide
is
retarding the eradication of poverty.
It reveals that the infant mortality rate has been rising in the US
for
the past five years - and is now the same as Malaysia. America's black
children are twice as likely as whites to die before their first
birthday.
The report is bound to incense the Bush administration as it provides
ammunition for critics who have claimed that the fiasco following
Hurricane
Katrina shows that Washington does not care about poor black Americans.
But
the 370-page document is critical of American policies towards poverty
abroad as well as at home. And, in unusually outspoken language, it
accuses
the US of having "an overdeveloped military strategy and an
under-developed
strategy for human security".
"There is an urgent need to develop a collective security framework
that
goes beyond military responses to terrorism," it continues. " Poverty
and
social breakdown are core components of the global security threat."
The document, which was written by Kevin Watkins, the former head of
research at Oxfam, will be seen as round two in the battle between the
UN
and the US, which regards the world body as an unnecessary constraint
on its
strategic interests and actions.
Last month John Bolton, the new US ambassador to the UN, submitted 750
amendments to the draft declaration for next week's summit to
strengthen the
UN and review progress towards its Millennium Development Goals to
halve
world poverty by 2015.
The report launched yesterday is a clear challenge to Washington. The
Bush administration wants to replace multilateral solutions to
international
problems with a world order in which the US does as it likes on a
bilateral
basis.
"This is the UN coming out all guns firing," said one UN insider. "It
means that, even if we have a lame duck secretary general after the
Volcker
report (on the oil-for-food scandal), the rest of the organisation is
not
going to accept the US bilateralist agenda."
The clash on world poverty centres on the US policy of promoting
growth
and trade liberalisation on the assumption that this will trickle down
to
the poor. But this will not stop children dying, the UN says. Growth
alone
will not reduce poverty so long as the poor are denied full access to
health, education and other social provision. Among the world's poor,
infant
mortality is falling at less than half of the world average. To tackle
that
means tackling inequality - a message towards which John Bolton and
his
fellow US neocons are deeply hostile.
India and China, the UN says, have been very successful in wealth
creation but have not enabled the poor to share in the process. A
rapid
decline in child mortality has therefore not materialised. Indeed, when
it
comes to reducing infant deaths, India has now been overtaken by
Bangladesh,
which is only growing a third as fast.
Poverty could be halved in just 17 years in Kenya if the poorest
people
were enabled to double the amount of economic growth they can achieve
at
present.
Inequality within countries is as stark as the gaps between countries,
the UN says. Poverty is not the only issue here. The death rate for
girls in
India is now 50 per cent higher than for boys. Gender bias means girls
are
not given the same food as boys and are not taken to clinics as often
when
they are ill. Foetal scanning has also reduced the number of girls
born.
The only way to eradicate poverty, it says, is to target inequalities.
Unless that is done the Millennium Development Goals will never be met.
And
41 million children will die unnecessarily over the next 10 years.
Decline in health care
Child mortality is on the rise in the United States
For half a century the US has seen a sustained decline in the number
of
children who die before their fifth birthday. But since 2000 this trend
has
been reversed.
Although the US leads the world in healthcare spending - per head of
population it spends twice what other rich OECD nations spend on
average, 13
per cent of its national income - this high level goes
disproportionately on
the care of white Americans. It has not been targeted to eradicate
large
disparities in infant death rates based on race, wealth and state of
residence.
The infant mortality rate in the US is now the same as in Malaysia
High levels of spending on personal health care reflect America's
cutting-edge medical technology and treatment. But the paradox at the
heart
of the US health system is that, because of inequalities in health
financing, countries that spend substantially less than the US have,
on
average, a healthier population. A baby boy from one of the top 5 per
cent
richest families in America will live 25 per cent longer than a boy
born in
the bottom 5 per cent and the infant mortality rate in the US is the
same as
Malaysia, which has a quarter of America's income.
Blacks in Washington DC have a higher infant death rate than people in
the Indian state of Kerala
The health of US citizens is influenced by differences in insurance,
income, language and education. Black mothers are twice as likely as
white
mothers to give birth to a low birthweight baby. And their children are
more
likely to become ill.
Throughout the US black children are twice as likely to die before
their
first birthday.
Hispanic Americans are more than twice as likely as white Americans to
have no health cover
The US is the only wealthy country with no universal health insurance
system. Its mix of employer-based private insurance and public coverage
does
not reach all Americans. More than one in six people of working age
lack
insurance. One in three families living below the poverty line are
uninsured. Just 13 per cent of white Americans are uninsured, compared
with
21 per cent of blacks and 34 per cent of Hispanic Americans. Being born
into
an uninsured household increases the probability of death before the
age of
one by about 50 per cent.
More than a third of the uninsured say that they went without medical
care last year because of cost
Uninsured Americans are less likely to have regular outpatient care,
so
they are more likely to be admitted to hospital for avoidable health
problems.
More than 40 per cent of the uninsured do not have a regular place to
receive medical treatment. More than a third say that they or someone
in
their family went without needed medical care, including prescription
drugs,
in the past year because they lacked the money to pay.
If the gap in health care between black and white Americans was
eliminated it would save nearly 85,000 lives a year. Technological
improvements in medicine save about 20,000 lives a year.
Child poverty rates in the United States are now more than 20 per
cent.
Child poverty is a particularly sensitive indicator for income poverty
in rich countries. It is defined as living in a family with an income
below
50 per cent of the national average.
The US - with Mexico - has the dubious distinction of seeing its child
poverty rates increase to more than 20 per cent. In the UK - which at
the
end of the 1990s had one of the highest child poverty rates in Europe -
the
rise in child poverty, by contrast, has been reversed through increases
in
tax credits and benefits.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:49:59 EST