Biologist Jared Diamond, author of ‘Collapse’ and ‘Germs, Guns and Steel’ said that, “The evidence that tribal peoples often damage their environments and make war,” is a very dangerous idea. Why?

Because too many people today believe that a reason not to mistreat tribal people is that they are too nice or wise or peaceful to do those evil things, which only we evil citizens of state governments do. The idea is dangerous because, if you believe that that’s the reason not to mistreat tribal peoples, then proof of the idea’s truth would suggest that it’s OK to mistreat them. In fact, the evidence seems to me overwhelming that the dangerous idea is true. But we should treat other people well because of ethical reasons, not because of naïve anthropological theories that will almost surely prove false.

Stretching the idea of “ethical reasons” even farther, should we not treat people well because we are, in some sense, all sisters and brothers living under the roof of this improbable house known as the human condition? Can one choose to practice this, strive for this? Or are we far less free than we suppose?

Most people will call their own sisters and brothers just that. One might do the same for good friends. What about acquaintances? What about community strangers? Foreign strangers? What about the political foes one most dislikes? Are they sisters and brothers? In some humbling, way, I would say yes.

Speaking of bias, in an interesting article in the Washington Post, I read Harvard scientist Mahzarin Banaji has at eye level on a bookshelf in her office—to keep in check bias discovered in her “Implicit Association Test” which measures unconscious prejudice—

postcards of famous women and African Americans: George Washington Carver, Emma Goldman, Miles Davis, Marie Curie, Frederick Douglass and Langston Hughes. During one interview, she wore a brooch on her jacket depicting Africa. What might seem like political correctness to some is an evidence-based intervention to combat her own biases, Banaji says.

I like that idea. I saw that bias in myself while making Uganda Rising. Despite World War I, World War II, colonialism, Vietnam, Iraq today, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and on and on, I would still—much to my shame and curiosity—sometimes ask myself: “Why do these (black? African? desperate?) people keep killing each other?”—as if it was at its root a racial problem.

If you dislike liberals or conservatives or whomever else, put pictures in your office or on the fridge of the ones who have done great things. If you can’t find any that have, could the problem be a highly unstable and fear-based worldview that might need a little tweaking?

Maybe I can help. Abe Lincoln, for example, was a Republican that Democrats could root for. I can’t think of a Democrat a Republican would like, but I’m trying. How about that Democrat Harry Truman? Neither group would like Emma Goldman, but she’s still a hero.

And the reverse works, too, as a reminder. Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder, yet praised and adored by many. Henry Ford was the epitome of the American Dream, and he thought the world of Hitler and supposedly got inspiration for his assembly line factories from slaughterhouses. Che Guevera was both a freedom fighter and a cold-blooded killer.

If you’re mad at America, remember that Noam Chomsky is American. If you’re mad at Middle Eastern people, remember that…well, remember George Bush is American.

Maybe even put some photos of yourself doing beautiful things in your office. Doing beautiful things for others could turn into a habit.

It’s the law of association. We become like that with which we associate—or as the yogis say, meditate upon. So keep your discernment, but love more, remember more, watch out for the evening news, and never forget how wonderful flawed humans can be, and how flawed wonderful humans can be.

It’s not easy being a person. We don’t even know what we are—a bunch of synapses, soulful beings, beings with a soul or a mish-mash. And we’re fleeting, too. That’s a lot of pressure. Good luck to everyone. Let’s talk later. Love, Pete.

I recently heard the remarkable Gopa Khotari of Operation Eyesight speaking in Vancouver. Her organization fights preventable blindness among the poor, and seeks simultaneously to promote sustainable change in the slums of Mumbai and in other parts of India (and slowly elsewhere), through the implementation of life and survival skills, and perhaps most importantly, deep dialogue with the people living there. This dialogue—so vulnerable in a world that has an unfortunate and often devastating instinct to impose itself—is key in making sustainable (self-sufficient) change a reality.

For me, it is no surprise that women are the force behind this, listening deeply and creatively to the needs of locals living under appalling conditions, and helping viable ideas to be implemented—all vital for sustainability.

If you look around the world, it’s just so hyper-masculinized, the essence of a non-listening paradigm; the war machine of America; AIDS wiping out African women (due mostly to a lack of rights, education and access to care); the lack of rights of women in the Middle East; female infanticide in China.

Men just aren’t protecting women (and children and poets for that matter) from violence, as we can see with Darfur (and countless other places).

Integral philosophy (based much on Ken Wilber’s research) is based on the idea that an integration and expansion of both outer and inner conditions (laid out in great detail) are vital for sustained, dignified change to take place in communities of extreme poverty (and everywhere—including ourselves).

Here, too, a woman of great insight and compassion is leading the way. Gail Hochachka has been studying integral philosophy for years, and has been practicing it on the ground in El Salvador, Peru, Nigeria, Ethiopia and elsewhere. She has coined a phrase that I just love: “folk integral,” which is an awareness that—details not withstanding—many locals have an innate integrated philosophy that needs to not only be listened to, but implemented to start the reformation of communities in distress.

Hochachka’s book on the subject is on line (freely downloadable), and is an invaluable and inspiring guide for aid workers and organizations everywhere. I can’t recommend it highly enough, and the effects of a deep listening, “folk” integrated approach not being used seem to me to be perilous indeed, unsustainable results leading to donor fatigue.

To quote Gail’s “Case Studies on an Integral Approach to International Development”:

The Integral approach applied to international development takes the emphasis away from merely transferring technology or boosting economic growth, to also include the nuance of self-development and socio-cultural transformation. Without these latter arenas of action, development process is reduced to something quantitative and technological, dis-connected from the creativity and cultural resonance that makes up a more full, complete and qualitative wellbeing.

She goes on to say:

Wherever this implicit form of “integral practice� emerges, it tends to be communicated in a culturally appropriate manner, with tools for change that come from the local context and resonate with local people. Many of the specific tools used have come directly from the experience of the field practitioners, in their search for more effective modes of action. I refer to these approaches as folk, as they have arisen in different cultures and communities, independent of Integral theory and in response to the reality on the ground. They draw more on practical reality and folklore, than from philosophy and academic studies.

Against the backdrop of human nature and economic interests trumping human needs, the world does indeed look bleak. Perhaps it has to be this way. But solidarity through listening, serving and compassion for all of our sisters and brothers can still make life, if not wonderfully hopeful, hopefully wonderful.

I think I’ll try it in my own life, my own community, maybe hug some strangers, and hopefully not get arrested. Maybe call my mother, tell her I love her. And just listen, really listen, more.

Oh, a propos (whatever that means) to my previous comment about once believing in the Montreal Canadiens, click on “listen to Big Bums excerpt” here and then click again once you’re there.

It’s about how in the USofA, when I was a kid (the 1970s), everything always seemed bigger and brighter.

For something more sombre, a propos to the comment about being under military attack, there’s an interesting article in Walrus Magazine this week revealing the tragedy and undeniably criminal (crimes against humanity) secret bombing of Cambodia (being five times greater than previously thought) during the Vietnam war (by Taylor Owen and Ben Kiernan).

Here’s to love and vigilance.

A friend said to me yesterday: some people believe in karma, but does karma believe in them? It was an interesting question, because to believe in karma is to believe in a relationship with cause and effect—that there is intelligence behind cause and effect.

Does this mean, that in some way, with whatever we “believe” in, a relationship is implied. So what do we really mean when we say we believe in nature, or the universe, or God, or science? Or nothing? Does then nothing believe in you?

Curious. I used to believe in the Montreal Canadiens, and they definitely believed in me.

It’s so interesting to look at the timbre of the world, or at least the world that a given individual (you, me) can be aware of, in my case the political West, and wonder how it got to be so consistently divisive—or is this just an ongoing projection of human nature, the human condition, dressed in a modern wardrobe?

Knowing that a blog like this (like much of what we do) has no perceptible meaning whatsoever, other than to falsely assuage the gnawing truth that surely most all sweeping historical movements (and perhaps the minute ones) are beyond us, incomprehensible, and probably have nothing to do with most of the details we point out, lie about, defend and argue over.

The question may be for all of us: how do we stand in this (perhaps unavoidable) atmosphere, and maintain that part of the human condition that isn’t utterly run by the divisive nature of the modern world? That part of us that sees a wider spectrum of similarity, and a wonder—even celebration—at the unavoidable diversity; that sees beauty, solidarity, creativity, joy and art as something other than some Darwinistic manipulation; that understands how temporary we are, and how fleeting this is.

What if the world’s meant to be, or at least, has to be this way? And being nature, we are a part of that world. Then how “I” (the part of us that doesn’t feel like that world) responds to the onslaught (and the beauty) becomes, if not everything, refreshingly relevant.

At this point, the age old yogic question of “Who am I?” always arises. It’s definitely worth consideration and exploration, if you’ve got the time.

For me, starting with fascination, gratitude and love is of great use—and seeing people, strangers, even those I really don’t agree with as sisters and brothers. I say that with humility seeing as I live in the relative peace of Canada. Imagine trying to stand in this under military attack, imagine the long and short term psychological effects on children, sisters, brothers, parents…

I always try to remember that humbling fact before I launch into my two-bits about foreign policy. Imagine if you were under attack—your parents or family or friends injured, starving, killed—and thousands of people you’d never met (and who never thought about you specifically) kept talking about what’s best for you.

I don’t have a TV, but the news was on at a friend’s place the other night (I think CBC or CTV), and it really felt like a propaganda piece for Prime Minister Harper’s operations in Afghanistan. The Afghan leader was visiting, and being interviewed, and saying what seemed to me, sadly, precisely nothing about the details of what is going on in his terrorized country (and now he’s in the US battling it out with Pakistan’s leader, while Bush deals with more revelations of the disaster that is Iraq (as always at the expense of civilians)).

I don’t expect to agree with Harper, nor do I have to, but wouldn’t it be remarkable if one of these leaders was sufficiently in control of their own personhood to have the courage and integrity to speak with even a minimal spectrum of truth and ideas. Imagine Stephen Harper saying what he surely must know—or perhaps these facts just don’t register. But just imagine Bush or Harper, or any other, saying:

I get it. I really do. I understand those who don’t agree with my policy in Afghanistan. There are many solid reasons to be against it. The war in Iraq was undertaken under proven dubious claims, to say the least, and only a great cynicism towards these facts have allowed the lies to be be changed as needed. There were no weapons of mass destruction. We are more interested in oil and a country willing to work for our interests than democracy. Anybody can see this.

The proof is everywhere. In the late 80s, American foreign policy consciously and intensely supported and financed Saddam Hussein when he was committing his worst atrocities, gassing his own people and killing probably a hundred thousand. And, yes, you should know—I want you to know—that the Islamic extremists from all over the world were brought together in Afghanistan and trained by American and Pakistani intelligence, circa 1979, to both antagonize and then fight the Russians. This policy clearly played a major role in creating today’s security disaster.

Then they could go on to say, if they really felt it:

But, and it’s a big but, today, despite all this, I believe these extremists are fundamentally opposed to our less-than-perfect democracy. The terrorists and the terrorist potential coming from Afghanistan are a threat to us. Also, the Taliban is a brutal force against the people of Afghanistan, women in particular, the most extreme radical Muslim group on the planet, and stopping them, I believe, actually trumps the sad truths that have unfolded.

I would still disagree that this military policy is the answer (in fact, how can Harper be sure when the leaders of Afghanistan, Pakistan and America are all arguing about where the Taliban and extremism are coming from?), but can you imagine how inspiring it would be to hear conviction over rhetoric? Conversation over polemic? A person who wanted to speak truth, to inform people relentlessly hammered by the evening news.

Maybe I’m just naive, but why not, just once? Imagine if Stephen Harper could start talking like that, instead of being a fine-tuned political animal repeating un-creative American soundbites like “measured response” and we don’t “cut and run.” But maybe some sort of natural selection/survival of the fittest evolution has shown countries are not run like that.

Maybe constituencies don’t respond to that.

Have a beautiful day. Try to see strangers as brothers and sisters. It’s an interesting exercise.

There are times when smart people say something so insightful that the moment you hear it, examples of it start popping up immediately and profoundly. Noam Chomsky has done this many times in my reading his work.

I wrote an essay a few days ago and quoted Chomsky saying:

For a dedicated totalitarian, ruling powers are to be identified with the people, the culture, and the society…criticism of state policy is criticism of the country and its people. For those who have any concern for democracy and freedom, such charges are merely farcical.

Similar charges [like labeling American dissidents as America-hating] were familiar in the old Soviet Union: dissidents were condemned for hating Russia…Such criticisms reflect deeply held totalitarian values.

No one really expects such a statement to be utterly and immediately backed up by evidence.

At a press conference yesterday (Sept 15, 2006), President Bush said, in response to what Colin Powell said about America losing their moral credibility:

If there’s any comparisons between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, that’s flawed logic. I just simply can’t accept that. It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behaviour of the United States of America and the actions of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.

The part to take note of is President Bush using extremists and comparing them not to American foreign policy, but to the American people, as if the foreign policy and the civilians are one and the same.

Again: “For a dedicated totalitarian, ruling powers are to be identified with the people, the culture, and the society…” Hmm. I think Noam paid him to say it.

Oh, well. Maybe George, too, will find somewhere a wider vision.

As for the Pope’s insulting of Islam, it would have have been so wonderful had he the insight, fortitude or whatever, to say, “We understand this extremist thing (of Islamic leaders), too—we (as Christian leaders) lived by it for centuries, against the gnostics, the Jews, on the Crusades and for hundreds of years of Inquisition—and of course, in the colonising of Africa and India and so on. We were so sure we were right, too. We were foul, cruel and hopelessly misguided at the expense of love, compassion and humanity. We can learn from each other…”

Anyway, brothers and sisters, may learning continue, for this too shall pass. Be vigilant in love.

A friend of mine was recently talking about the “science” of “framing” things as a form of controlling the way things are seen. For example, in the States there is something called “tax relief,” which sounds like something to benefit average Joes and Joannes, when it’s actually a “conservative” frame for cutting the taxes of the wealthiest strata.

This group Media Alert extends the boundaries of the framework of what a corporation is, and asks if “corporations” can, in fact, be benign, socially responsible etc—not in limited “red-herring” cases, but as a way of being, when shareholder profits and market share are the essence of “market theory.”

I used “quotations” everywhere “because” these words are “so” “generalized.” Nonetheless, “food” for “thought.” We will, in the end, argue on behalf of our worldview, and thus compassion is required for all.

Ah, the “human” “dilemma.” Anyway, here it is:

Media Alert: The Invisible Corporate Shadow

September 14, 2006

The Australian social scientist Alex Carey summed up the evolution of political power in the last century as follows:

“The twentieth century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.” (‘Taking the risk out of democracy,’ University of Illinois Press, 1995, p.ix)

The power of the state has also grown, a major factor in facilitating the rise of corporate dominance. As we have noted before in our media alerts, the projection of the West’s military might around the globe is undertaken for profit and control. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman put it bluntly:

“The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.”

Full report: medialens

I wrote this article about the queasiness I felt when I first heard Noam Chomsky had met with Hezbollah in May, and combined that with a longing/dream I have for more beautiful conversation, not just between the “power players,” but between all of us—a belief in strangers as sisters and brothers.

I know, I know, but I’m a romantic—even socially. Even if you hate me, I love you. We’ll work it out.

If you read this, I’d love feedback and ideas, and information on things limited. Here’s an excerpt just before it really gets great:

I’ve gone on line some more.

I’m pretty sure there is no Hezbollah/Chomsky plot.

The give away? It turns out that a couple weeks after the Hezbollah incident, Chomsky gave a talk at West Point Military Academy.

Now that, my friends, is a contradiction.

Would it be outlandish to guess that some parts of the military establishment are bitter with being railroaded into this war by a chain of command whose interests were in hindsight insanely myopic and whose predictions for Iraq were ludicrous—while this hated Jewish professor from MIT was pretty much bang on with his predictions?

Either way, I can’t see West Point, Hezbollah and Chomsky together in a plot. I’d say that’s right up there with the theory that JFK actually shot himself.

More at: Noam Chomsky in Lebanon

This was the saddest news I read today, a report by the Sensil Council:

Failure to address Afghanistan’s extreme poverty
fuelling support for Taliban

After five years of international donor pledges to provide resources and assistance to Afghanistan, Afghans are starving to death, and there is evidence that poverty is driving support for the Taliban. Prioritising military-based security, the United States’ and United Kingdom’s focus on counter-terrorism initiatives and militaristic responses to Afghanistan’s opium crisis has undermined the local and international development community’s abilities to respond to Afghanistan’s many poverty-related challenges.

To see the full report: Afghanistan Five Years Later: The Return of the Taliban

I don’t know what to do about it, or if I’m right, but Canada seems to be involved in a multi-intentioned lie of bad policy (with best intentions by those taking orders, I am sure) that is now a quagmire of angst and death—with the Afghani people paying the price, of course.

In our “humanitarian efforts” one in four children in Afghanistan, it now seems, die before the age of five—worse than even sub-Saharan Africa, that I believe is one in five.

I think we need to not only get out, but think of alternative humane options. Any ideas, or anyone pushing for ideas? RAWA and the rest of the Afghani people who haven’t had any peace since 1979 need love, support, a voice.

Obviously I am saddened by Prime Minister Harper’s choice, but I think it is a systemic rather than individual problem. Were not the Liberals under Martin involved (with US and French leaders) in Aristide’s removal in Haiti (after he won, I believe, over 90% of the popular vote)? It’s extraordinary to think that Western interests could truly trump supporting popular democracy elsewhere, even if the victor isn’t the candidate Western leaders or businesses would choose. It never ceases to amaze me that in 1953, Iran was a democracy. I don’t know what I’d do if I didn’t believe in love—and all us humans as sisters and brothers. Feel free, incidentally, to correct my inaccuracies—and give thanks you don’t live in Afghanistan. Never forget how sweet life is, and how sweet it can be.

Pete