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 j8CCc1G02707; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:38:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:38:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <E83E35FB-D00D-4EAD-AACA-EEA2D9C0A107@comcast.net> 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: David Rosen <djrosen@comcast.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:1535] Do we live in a racist and classist society? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Status: O Content-Length: 12600 Lines: 343 NIFL-POVRACELIT Colleagues, The NPR radio program, All Things Considered, this past weekend had an intensely moving, one-hour piece called "After The Flood" which is pertinent to this discussion. On many public radio stations it will be re-broadcast this weekend. (See http://www.thislife.org/ for schedule.) It is also available through podcasts and, for a nominal cost, directly from NPR. David J. Rosen djrosen@comcast.net On Sep 9, 2005, at 12:21 PM, Andres Muro wrote: > 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