By Esteban Israel:
HAVANA, Cuba (Reuters) -- It's almost midnight at a roadside bar on the outskirts of Havana and young Cubans gather to listen to hip hop.
A man with dreadlocks steps up, microphone in hand, to the roar of approval from a crowd of 150 fans.
"I'm not going to turn my back on reality, even if they censor and repress me," he chants to a driving beat, as the eager audience, which knows every word, sings along.
"Days go by and I'm still locked up, censored. They look at me like a renowned dissident, rejected by the media."
The two-man Cuban rap group "Los Aldeanos" can sell songs on iTunes to followers abroad, but in Cuba they remain an underground band that has been playing mostly unadvertised gigs at unauthorized venues for seven years.
They rap about prostitution, police harassment, social inequality and corruption, delicate issues rarely raised by Cuban musicians in the socialist state born of Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution.
Cuba's communist authorities say their anti-establishment songs are too critical and cannot be played on Cuban radio stations, that are all state-run, or sold in the shops.
The band has no access to Cuba's record labels either. Their 20 albums were recorded in a friend's makeshift studio a long bus ride and a two-mile walk from downtown Havana.
"Los Aldeanos" was formed in 2003 by Aldo Rodriguez and elementary school teacher Bian Rodriguez.
The rappers have become the abrasive voice of a disaffected generation of politically numbed Cubans who grew up during Cuba's post-Soviet economic crisis of the 1990s.
Some of their music is sold overseas through online sites, with the proceeds going to buy equipment, said their U.S.-based producer Melisa Riviere, president of Emetrece Productions.
But with no income from record sales or concerts in Cuba, theirs is a labor of love.
Barred from access to state media, their fans hear about their performances by word of mouth or text messages sent from cell phone to cell phone.
Their fans are mainly young people who revel in the outlaw nature of their shows and their politically risque lyrics.
"They talk about our reality. That's why we like them," says Pablo, a 20-year old musician wearing a black T-shirt hand painted with the band's name.
"Los Aldeanos are the result of a pact to do the rebellious music we wanted. We wanted to say what we feel, what we see, without limits," says Aldo, who has a huge tattoo saying "Rap is war" on his right forearm.
While critical of society, Aldo says the group's music seeks to restore the solidarity and respect Cubans had before they were worn away by decades of economic hardship.
"Our work aims at a positive change in society. Not just in the government, but also spiritually ... today Cubans step on and humiliate one another," he told Reuters in a recent interview.
The group's name means "The Villagers" and refers to their vision of a unified and supportive Cuban society.
The official Cuban news agency AIN recently accused them of "hypercriticism" and being the latest tool of Cuba's foes.
"Our enemies make no distinction between mercenaries and naive, irresponsible people who disagree. Anyone is good as long as they sing the counterrevolutionary music," it said.
But rappers of "Los Aldeanos" say their music is actually revolutionary, and they criticized those Cubans who become critical only after reaching the safe shores of Miami.
"I wouldn't be a revolutionary man if I didn't say what I think when asked," said Aldo. "Why do I have to be afraid to express what I feel? Shutting up means freezing in time."
If their official reception at home is cool, overseas Los Aldeanos are being warmly embraced. Like most Cubans they have little access to Internet, but their music is all over the Web and a recent homemade video got almost 500,000 hits.
"Los Aldeanos are YouTube kings. They are audio-visually pirated throughout the globe," says producer Riviere.
Colombian rock star Juanes wanted them at a huge outdoor concert he held last year in Havana but the government refused. Puerto Rican hip hop heavyweights Calle 13 tried unsuccessfully to sneak them on stage during their Havana show last month.
But things could be changing.
The rappers, who have been denied permits to travel abroad, now have invitations to perform in Colombia, Mexico and Spain, and they hope to be allowed to go this time.
Riviere said Cuba's authorities have realized Los Aldeanos are a reflection of the island's culture and it would be better to give the popular group some slack.
In a hopeful sign things may be opening up, the government allowed them to perform their first concert in a Havana theater on April 24 to mark their seventh anniversary.
Entry was tightly controlled by police and state security agents were inside the theater, but 1,000 fans attended the show and hundreds more had to be turned away.
"You can't imagine all we have been through to get here tonight," Aldo told the cheering crowd.
May 17, 2010
caribbeannetnews
An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World. This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Why Privacy on Facebook Is 'Virtually Impossible'
Editor's Note: The controversy over Facebook's aggressive attempts to cash in on information about its members is heating up. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that "anti-Facebook sentiment is surfacing in highly visible places, from the halls of Congress to the blogs and podcasts of influential technology experts like 
"Earlier this month, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and 14 other privacy and consumer organizations filed a complaint against Facebook with the Federal Trade Commission, accusing the popular social network of "unfair and deceptive trade practices" and violating users' expectations of privacy and consumer protection laws. And last month, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., asked the FTC to develop guidelines instructing social networks on how private information can be used. All of this comes in the wake of the company's launch of a new "open" social platform designed to bring Facebook features, such as its Like button, to other Web sites, and an experimental Instant Personalization feature that gives certain Web sites the ability to access a member's name, profile picture, sex and network of friends. The company also launched community pages that made topics in a member's profile more public."
Erik Hayden's article below from Miller-McCune explores the results of a new study that suggest that privacy on Facebook is probably impossible:
***
On Facebook, You Are Who You Know
Even if you do have a mostly private Facebook profile, others can glean vital information about you — just by looking at your friend list.
by Erik Hayden, Miller-McCune.com
Remember the golden days when Facebook used to be for just college students? It was a quainter site — with a much different set of rules.
Drunken party photos used to be unceremoniously splayed out in public, privacy settings were almost nonexistent, wall posts weren’t status updates and there was little need to filter regrettably off-color comments. After all, the only people (you assumed) who saw that stuff were college buddies who were also posting the same incriminating photos of themselves on the site.
Now, after the Facebook explosion, users are more aware of privacy issues than ever before and the new rule of thumb has become “curb public access to your profile as best you can.”
New research suggests that this is nearly impossible.
In a study conducted by Alan Mislove of Northeastern University and his colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Software Systems, researchers tested an algorithm that could accurately infer the personal attributes of Facebook users by simply looking at their friend lists. The research culled profile information from two detailed social-network data sets: one from a sample of almost 4,000 students and alumni on Facebook at Rice University and another from more than 63,000 users in the New Orleans regional network.
Researchers developed an algorithm to see if they could accurately infer attributes like high school or college, department of study, hometown, graduation year and even dormitory by dissecting these users’ friend lists. The study cut to the core of the debate surrounding the social-networking site: Is your personal profile your own or, to paraphrase anti-Facebook crusader Leif Harmsen, is it the site’s profile about you?
“The current privacy debate that’s going on concerning Facebook is essentially covering explicitly provided attributes [i.e. information uploaded by you onto your profile],” Mislove wrote. “We see our work as pointing out that there exist many implicitly provided attributes that aren’t even being discussed.” Namely, that your friend’s profile can usually divulge more information than you think.
According to the study, only about 5 percent of users in each network had changed their privacy settings to make their friend list inaccessible. (To hide it, enter your Facebook profile, click on the edit icon above your friends and unclick the blue box marked “Show Friend List to everyone.”) In the New Orleans network, personal profiles remained largely accessible to researchers. Some 58 percent of users disclosed university attended, 42 percent disclosed employers, 35 percent disclosed interests and 19 percent gave the public access to their location.
Because of this information given, Mislove explained that it was relatively easy for his algorithm to accurately pinpoint attributes such as geography (dormitory or hometown) or education background (which high school or college users attend) for a specific user.
In the New Orleans regional network, the algorithm unsurprisingly found that users were 53 times more likely to share the attribute of the same high school with those on their friend list than with other random users in the network. At Rice, the algorithm accurately predicted the correct dormitory, graduation year and area of study for the many of the students. In fact, among these undergraduates, researchers found that “with as little as 20 percent of the users providing attributes we can often infer the attributes for the remaining users with over 80 percent accuracy.”
While marketing companies who specialize in targeted advertising may rejoice, these results may be troubling for those who’ve held out hope that Facebook could provide adequate privacy controls. Not to seem alarmist (“privacy” on the Web has always been overrated), but if these researchers could develop a limited algorithm that can infer rudimentary attributes off locked profiles, the possibilities seem endless for others to harness advanced software that could render current privacy controls completely useless.
“The privacy story on these sites is more complicated that we like to think, as your privacy is not just a function of what you provide, it’s a function of what your friends and community members provide as well,” Mislove elaborated.
Researchers concluded that it wasn’t “sufficient” to just give users access to privacy controls for their own profiles; the option to censor friend lists should be given to make sure that private information cannot be inferred.
As the title of the study states, on Facebook, you are who you know.
Erik Hayden recently graduated from Pepperdine University with a B.A. in Political Science and a minor in Religion. He is currently a fellow for Miller-McCune and regularly contributes for a variety of publications including the Ventura County Star and the alt-weekly, VCReporter.
May 15, 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Growth of prominent Garifuna village in Belize will be doomed
By Wellington C Ramos:
One of the most prosperous and thriving Garifuna villages in the country of Belize is Hopkins. According to Garifuna history, this village was created after a severe hurricane destroyed a previous village in the Commerce Bight pier area of Dangriga town.
The residents of this village used to be mostly Garifuna people from the Nunez, Castillo, Martinez, Arana and Lewis families. There are other families in the village who have integrated into these families over the years. This village is geographically situated in the south of Dangriga town, north of Sittee River, east the Caribbean Sea and west the village of Silkgrass.
The people in this village used to survive by fishing and farming and many of them are members of the Belize Police Force, the Belize Defence Force, teaching and other branches of the civil service. Today, several people from the village of Hopkins are in the business of tourism because the place is famous for its beautiful beaches.
Due to the beautiful beaches that Hopkins possesses, rich Belizeans and foreign nationals have been buying up lands in the village and surrounding areas to open up tourist resorts. Many residents of Hopkins have and are migrating to the United States to join their family members, pursue higher education or to improve their economic situation. While this is occurring, there is a significant drop in the population growth among the Garifuna people and an increase in the population of the newcomers.
A majority of the government land is being sold by the government and private landowners for residential and commercial purposes. When some members of the village experience economic hardship, they lean to sell their properties to foreigners for a huge amount of money.
In urban planning it is always wise for the government not to sell lands in the immediate vicinity of a village, town or city so that the land could be available for the expansion of the community. If the government makes the mistake and sells those lands, when the need for expansion arrives it will be forced to exercise its right to eminent domain to acquire additional lands for expansion. This could result in lengthy court litigation and exorbitant cost for the lands needed.
The village of Hopkins seems to be at a point where it can only expand west towards the village of Silkgrass or north towards Dangriga town along the coast to remain on the beach front properties. The Garifuna people from the time they were living in their native homeland of Saint Vincent and other islands in the Caribbean were always accustomed to living by the beaches. Getting them to move westward to Silkgrass, even if it was possible will be difficult because most of them will resist such idea or recommendation.
To the north of Hopkins is Commerce Bight Lagoon and then Commerce Bight Pier, which is in the jurisdiction of Dangriga Town municipality. This will be moving backwards instead of forward because they will be returning back to the same place where some of their ancestors lived many years ago before they moved to the village of Hopkins.
For the people of Hopkins to have a future in their current village, the village council should devise a long term future development plan with their area representative now. This plan should include the discontinuation of selling vacant government lands in the immediate vicinity of Hopkins village and the purchasing of available private lands by the government to be included in the Hopkins Village Expansion Reserves.
The prices of these lands, once they become private, will be too expensive for the government to purchase. The private landowners will price their lands at a cost to earn profit or to make it impossible for the government to afford, with the intent to block the expansion of Hopkins Village.
People who are rich and have money, most of them tend to be more comfortable in isolation and seclusion. They will oppose having people from a different ethnicity with marginal or no income living within their community. Since the mass migration of foreign nationals to our shores, many Belizeans are experiencing discrimination by some of these foreign nationals for trying to visit or gain access through their private properties.
As Belize continues to attract more of these people to our country, the situation will only worsen instead of getting better. It is not fair and just for native citizens of Belize to be discriminated against by the very newcomers they have welcomed into their country.
This is now the right time for the Ministry of Natural Resources to consider establishing a National Parks System to preserve and maintain all of their reserve lands. It might also be a good idea to re-activate the Lands, Agriculture, Public Works and Forestry Departments. These departments will be able to generate additional revenues for the government and provide jobs for those Belizeans who are unemployed.
I visited the village of Hopkins, Silkgrass and Sittee River recently and I am not satisfied with some of the disturbing things that I observed. Most of the things I was hearing about Hopkins I thought were lies and fabrication. After the visit, I have concurred that there exists a legitimate concern, which the Hopkinsonians and the government of Belize should address now before it is too late.
The purpose of good governments is to look after the welfare of the people who voted for them to serve on their behalf. I have already stated the problems, now it is the task of the people of Hopkins Village to advocate on behalf of themselves to make sure that this problem be resolved as soon as possible. I intend to monitor the reaction and the progress that is being made by the government of Belize towards the resolution of this problem.
May 15, 2010
caribbeannetnews
One of the most prosperous and thriving Garifuna villages in the country of Belize is Hopkins. According to Garifuna history, this village was created after a severe hurricane destroyed a previous village in the Commerce Bight pier area of Dangriga town.
The residents of this village used to be mostly Garifuna people from the Nunez, Castillo, Martinez, Arana and Lewis families. There are other families in the village who have integrated into these families over the years. This village is geographically situated in the south of Dangriga town, north of Sittee River, east the Caribbean Sea and west the village of Silkgrass.
The people in this village used to survive by fishing and farming and many of them are members of the Belize Police Force, the Belize Defence Force, teaching and other branches of the civil service. Today, several people from the village of Hopkins are in the business of tourism because the place is famous for its beautiful beaches. Due to the beautiful beaches that Hopkins possesses, rich Belizeans and foreign nationals have been buying up lands in the village and surrounding areas to open up tourist resorts. Many residents of Hopkins have and are migrating to the United States to join their family members, pursue higher education or to improve their economic situation. While this is occurring, there is a significant drop in the population growth among the Garifuna people and an increase in the population of the newcomers.
A majority of the government land is being sold by the government and private landowners for residential and commercial purposes. When some members of the village experience economic hardship, they lean to sell their properties to foreigners for a huge amount of money.
In urban planning it is always wise for the government not to sell lands in the immediate vicinity of a village, town or city so that the land could be available for the expansion of the community. If the government makes the mistake and sells those lands, when the need for expansion arrives it will be forced to exercise its right to eminent domain to acquire additional lands for expansion. This could result in lengthy court litigation and exorbitant cost for the lands needed.
The village of Hopkins seems to be at a point where it can only expand west towards the village of Silkgrass or north towards Dangriga town along the coast to remain on the beach front properties. The Garifuna people from the time they were living in their native homeland of Saint Vincent and other islands in the Caribbean were always accustomed to living by the beaches. Getting them to move westward to Silkgrass, even if it was possible will be difficult because most of them will resist such idea or recommendation.
To the north of Hopkins is Commerce Bight Lagoon and then Commerce Bight Pier, which is in the jurisdiction of Dangriga Town municipality. This will be moving backwards instead of forward because they will be returning back to the same place where some of their ancestors lived many years ago before they moved to the village of Hopkins.
For the people of Hopkins to have a future in their current village, the village council should devise a long term future development plan with their area representative now. This plan should include the discontinuation of selling vacant government lands in the immediate vicinity of Hopkins village and the purchasing of available private lands by the government to be included in the Hopkins Village Expansion Reserves.
The prices of these lands, once they become private, will be too expensive for the government to purchase. The private landowners will price their lands at a cost to earn profit or to make it impossible for the government to afford, with the intent to block the expansion of Hopkins Village.
People who are rich and have money, most of them tend to be more comfortable in isolation and seclusion. They will oppose having people from a different ethnicity with marginal or no income living within their community. Since the mass migration of foreign nationals to our shores, many Belizeans are experiencing discrimination by some of these foreign nationals for trying to visit or gain access through their private properties.
As Belize continues to attract more of these people to our country, the situation will only worsen instead of getting better. It is not fair and just for native citizens of Belize to be discriminated against by the very newcomers they have welcomed into their country.
This is now the right time for the Ministry of Natural Resources to consider establishing a National Parks System to preserve and maintain all of their reserve lands. It might also be a good idea to re-activate the Lands, Agriculture, Public Works and Forestry Departments. These departments will be able to generate additional revenues for the government and provide jobs for those Belizeans who are unemployed.
I visited the village of Hopkins, Silkgrass and Sittee River recently and I am not satisfied with some of the disturbing things that I observed. Most of the things I was hearing about Hopkins I thought were lies and fabrication. After the visit, I have concurred that there exists a legitimate concern, which the Hopkinsonians and the government of Belize should address now before it is too late.
The purpose of good governments is to look after the welfare of the people who voted for them to serve on their behalf. I have already stated the problems, now it is the task of the people of Hopkins Village to advocate on behalf of themselves to make sure that this problem be resolved as soon as possible. I intend to monitor the reaction and the progress that is being made by the government of Belize towards the resolution of this problem.
May 15, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Friday, May 14, 2010
Timid Leadership setting back Caribbean in the world
By Sir Ronald Sanders:
Several commentators have lamented in recent years the seeming timidity of Caribbean leaders in not more aggressively defending and advancing the economic interests of Caribbean countries in the global community.
This apparent timidity has been evident in a number of areas including the surrender to bullying by the European Union (EU) when Caribbean governments signed up to an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) which went beyond the requirements of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, and in the submission to the dictation of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) over the operations of the financial services sector.
These capitulations will hurt the Caribbean now and haunt the region’s economic future for some time to come. Essentially, the space for making and implementing decisions in the Caribbean’s interest is either being severely restricted or lost altogether.
This malaise is weakening the once vibrant Caribbean Community which was led by courageous men and women who were not averse to standing up to the most powerful countries and agencies in defense of matters of importance to their nations and to the region.
While they sought strategic alliances with other nations and groups of countries, such as the pact with African and Pacific countries in the original negotiations with the EU, the motivation was the furtherance of their domestic and regional interest. They recognized that each of them was stronger for the support of the others, and they made unity not only a virtue but a tool, gathering together their best brains from government, the private sector and academia to map out their strategies and to implement them.
Somewhere along the path in recent years, the region has lost its way. The resolve to act collectively in the common interest of all appears to have been pushed to one side, as governments seek individual salvation. Collective action, long a strength of CARICOM, is paid only lip service. Worse yet, the collective use of the Caribbean’s best brains in government, business, and academia has disappeared.
So, the OECS countries join Japan to vote for commercial whaling even though there is a thriving tourism whale watching industry in the region; some countries have joined the Venezuelan-initiated ALBA – often taking positions within that group before discussing it in CARICOM; and the region remains divided on the issue of diplomatic recognition of China or Taiwan.
But, above all, bold leadership has diminished in the region, and it has reduced among Caribbean people the ambition to reach for the stars; to push the envelope so as to stride out of the shadows and into the global sunlight. The region is weaker for it. And, it will become weaker still unless the leadership of the region returns to the fundamentals of collective thinking and collective action, and asserts the Caribbean’s interest boldly; not surrendering to imposed rules in which they have not had a say; refusing to be bullied; and not allowing their governments to be captured by the inducements of others.
In this connection, a statement made to me by the Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, Ralph Gonsalves, is warmly welcomed. The Prime Minister told me on the record that “Venezuela had nothing to do with St Vincent’s decision to offer itself for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for the 2011-2012 term”.
Our discussion followed my commentary: “Serve the Caribbean’s interest, not some other country’s”.
Dr Gonsalves placed his government’s decision in the context of the need for small Caribbean states to be bold in order to reverse the idea that they are “little nothings”, and he was adamant that, should St Vincent and the Grenadines – one of the smallest of the Caribbean nations - succeed in this quest, its seat on the Security Council will be a CARICOM seat dedicated to advancing the region’s interest even as it deliberates, and helps to arbitrate on, global hot-spot issues.
Gonsalves looked forward to St Vincent’s UN mission being strengthened by personnel from other CARICOM countries and benefitting from advice and consultations with experienced present and former diplomats from the region. While he expected support from the ALBA countries, he declared: “We are not an ALBA candidate”. In this, the Prime Minister was prudently distancing his country from the controversial relations between Venezuela and Colombia, since it is Colombia against whom St Vincent will be competing for the single seat available to the Latin American and Caribbean group.
If, indeed, the St Vincent government is pursuing the Security Council non-permanent seat in a spirit of boldness and to assert the right of small countries to be represented and heard at the highest levels of global decision-making, then all Caribbean people should support it. When Guyana ran for - and got – the seat in 1975 as the first CARICOM state to do so, it was because the government at the time also felt that the domination by the larger Latin American states should end and the capacity of small states to contribute to thinking and solutions at the global level should be demonstrated.
None of this ignores the costs that the St Vincent government will face, and in this connection, every CARICOM government should pitch-in with money and qualified people. The quest must be a Caribbean one, for Caribbean purposes, financed by the Caribbean to assert the region’s independence.
And, as part of this resurgence of Caribbean boldness, regional governments should reject the recent offer made by the European Union to pay for Caribbean delegates to attend a Meeting of the CARIFORUM-EU EPA Joint Council, at ministerial level, on 17 May 2010 in Madrid.
This meeting was hastily proposed by the Commission of the European Union to be held on the day of the scheduled CARIFORUM-EU Summit in order “to adopt the two sets of Rules of Procedures” for the Joint Council.
But, CARICOM countries have not collectively addressed these rules. Worse yet, the European Commission (EC) has scheduled only one and a half hours to consider these complex legal rules whose application will have far reaching implications for the work of the Joint Council.
It is obvious that the EC expects the Caribbean to do nothing but rubber stamp the rules. And, it is time that regional governments call a halt to being railroaded.
They should reject the proposal for a hurried meeting of the Joint Council for which they are not prepared, and they should use the Summit to boldly tell the EU leadership of their dissatisfaction with the treatment the Caribbean has received for sugar, bananas and rum.
It is time again for collective and informed Caribbean boldness.
May 14, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Several commentators have lamented in recent years the seeming timidity of Caribbean leaders in not more aggressively defending and advancing the economic interests of Caribbean countries in the global community.
This apparent timidity has been evident in a number of areas including the surrender to bullying by the European Union (EU) when Caribbean governments signed up to an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) which went beyond the requirements of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, and in the submission to the dictation of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) over the operations of the financial services sector.
These capitulations will hurt the Caribbean now and haunt the region’s economic future for some time to come. Essentially, the space for making and implementing decisions in the Caribbean’s interest is either being severely restricted or lost altogether. This malaise is weakening the once vibrant Caribbean Community which was led by courageous men and women who were not averse to standing up to the most powerful countries and agencies in defense of matters of importance to their nations and to the region.
While they sought strategic alliances with other nations and groups of countries, such as the pact with African and Pacific countries in the original negotiations with the EU, the motivation was the furtherance of their domestic and regional interest. They recognized that each of them was stronger for the support of the others, and they made unity not only a virtue but a tool, gathering together their best brains from government, the private sector and academia to map out their strategies and to implement them.
Somewhere along the path in recent years, the region has lost its way. The resolve to act collectively in the common interest of all appears to have been pushed to one side, as governments seek individual salvation. Collective action, long a strength of CARICOM, is paid only lip service. Worse yet, the collective use of the Caribbean’s best brains in government, business, and academia has disappeared.
So, the OECS countries join Japan to vote for commercial whaling even though there is a thriving tourism whale watching industry in the region; some countries have joined the Venezuelan-initiated ALBA – often taking positions within that group before discussing it in CARICOM; and the region remains divided on the issue of diplomatic recognition of China or Taiwan.
But, above all, bold leadership has diminished in the region, and it has reduced among Caribbean people the ambition to reach for the stars; to push the envelope so as to stride out of the shadows and into the global sunlight. The region is weaker for it. And, it will become weaker still unless the leadership of the region returns to the fundamentals of collective thinking and collective action, and asserts the Caribbean’s interest boldly; not surrendering to imposed rules in which they have not had a say; refusing to be bullied; and not allowing their governments to be captured by the inducements of others.
In this connection, a statement made to me by the Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, Ralph Gonsalves, is warmly welcomed. The Prime Minister told me on the record that “Venezuela had nothing to do with St Vincent’s decision to offer itself for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for the 2011-2012 term”.
Our discussion followed my commentary: “Serve the Caribbean’s interest, not some other country’s”.
Dr Gonsalves placed his government’s decision in the context of the need for small Caribbean states to be bold in order to reverse the idea that they are “little nothings”, and he was adamant that, should St Vincent and the Grenadines – one of the smallest of the Caribbean nations - succeed in this quest, its seat on the Security Council will be a CARICOM seat dedicated to advancing the region’s interest even as it deliberates, and helps to arbitrate on, global hot-spot issues.
Gonsalves looked forward to St Vincent’s UN mission being strengthened by personnel from other CARICOM countries and benefitting from advice and consultations with experienced present and former diplomats from the region. While he expected support from the ALBA countries, he declared: “We are not an ALBA candidate”. In this, the Prime Minister was prudently distancing his country from the controversial relations between Venezuela and Colombia, since it is Colombia against whom St Vincent will be competing for the single seat available to the Latin American and Caribbean group.
If, indeed, the St Vincent government is pursuing the Security Council non-permanent seat in a spirit of boldness and to assert the right of small countries to be represented and heard at the highest levels of global decision-making, then all Caribbean people should support it. When Guyana ran for - and got – the seat in 1975 as the first CARICOM state to do so, it was because the government at the time also felt that the domination by the larger Latin American states should end and the capacity of small states to contribute to thinking and solutions at the global level should be demonstrated.
None of this ignores the costs that the St Vincent government will face, and in this connection, every CARICOM government should pitch-in with money and qualified people. The quest must be a Caribbean one, for Caribbean purposes, financed by the Caribbean to assert the region’s independence.
And, as part of this resurgence of Caribbean boldness, regional governments should reject the recent offer made by the European Union to pay for Caribbean delegates to attend a Meeting of the CARIFORUM-EU EPA Joint Council, at ministerial level, on 17 May 2010 in Madrid.
This meeting was hastily proposed by the Commission of the European Union to be held on the day of the scheduled CARIFORUM-EU Summit in order “to adopt the two sets of Rules of Procedures” for the Joint Council.
But, CARICOM countries have not collectively addressed these rules. Worse yet, the European Commission (EC) has scheduled only one and a half hours to consider these complex legal rules whose application will have far reaching implications for the work of the Joint Council.
It is obvious that the EC expects the Caribbean to do nothing but rubber stamp the rules. And, it is time that regional governments call a halt to being railroaded.
They should reject the proposal for a hurried meeting of the Joint Council for which they are not prepared, and they should use the Summit to boldly tell the EU leadership of their dissatisfaction with the treatment the Caribbean has received for sugar, bananas and rum.
It is time again for collective and informed Caribbean boldness.
May 14, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Jamaica's Prime Minister Bruce Golding admits lobby on behalf of drug accused Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke
Jamaica PM admits lobby on behalf of wanted man
caribbean360.com:
KINGSTON, Jamaica, Wednesday May 12, 2010 – A controversy surrounding efforts by the United States to have a drug accused extradited, and the Jamaica government’s resistance to those moves, yesterday became even more contentious as Prime Minister Bruce Golding admitted that he gave the nod for a law firm to be hired to lobby the US government on the extradition issue.
His admission was met with strong criticism across the floor of Parliament, even as he insisted the company was hired and paid by his Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and not the government.
Golding came clean on his involvement in the matter following weeks of allegations and claims that the government had engaged the services of US law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips to intervene as the US pushed its request for the extradition of Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke, a member of the JLP stronghold of West Kingston who is wanted on gun and drug charges in the US.
“I sanctioned the initiative, knowing that such interventions have in the past proven to be of considerable value in dealing with issues involving the governments of both countries. I made it clear, however, that this was an initiative to be undertaken by the Party, not by or on behalf of the government,” Golding said yesterday.
“A payment of US$49,892.62 was made to Manatt, Phelps & Phillips on September 18th 2009. These funds were sourced from financial contributors to the Party. Rumours and speculation carried in the media that these funds were provided by Christopher Coke are completely false as the Party is fully aware of the source of these funds,” he added.
Prime Minister Golding further insisted that there was “absolutely nothing illegally or surreptitious” about what had been done, arguing that the engagement of lobbyists to act on behalf of foreign governments, political parties or corporations is a well-known practice in the United States governed by law.
Golding has been strongly resisting the attempt to extradite Coke on the grounds that wire-tap evidence gathered by the US authorities in their case against him was illegally obtained.
He said that the Extradition Treaty between Jamaica and the US specifies the type of information that must be provided in support of a request for extradition and maintained that the information presented in the Coke matter is unacceptable because “it has been used in violation of Jamaican law and in contravention of the expressed order of a Judge of the Supreme Court”.
“For the (Justice) Minister to ignore this violation and issue the authorization to proceed would be to condone and legitimize this violation and would be a dereliction of duty,” he said, adding that although the Jamaica government wrote formally to the US authorities back in September 2009 requesting additional or separate information that would enable Justice Minister Dorothy Lightbourne to sign the authorization to proceed, the US has “steadfastly refused to do so”.
“I wish to make it clear that the government will, without hesitation, facilitate the extradition of any Jamaican citizen wanted to stand trial for extraditable offences once the obligations under the Treaty are met. Christopher Coke is wanted for an alleged crime in the US for which he ought to be tried and the government of Jamaica, consistent with its obligations under the Treaty, will do everything necessary to facilitate his extradition once it is done in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty and the laws of our country,” Golding told the Parliament.
“Some argue that this is a matter for the Courts and not the Minister to determine. They are wrong! As I have already pointed out, the Treaty makes it clear that information sufficient to allow the Minister to authorize extradition proceedings must be presented before the request is submitted to the Courts. What we have, therefore, is a dispute regarding the application of the Treaty. A treaty dispute cannot be resolved by the Courts of either party to the dispute. This is why we have used every conceivable means to resolve this dispute through dialogue with the US authorities.”
Prime Minister Golding said that since the controversy and the suggestion that the government's stand is motivated by partisan considerations, his administration retained the services of a senior attorney to seek a declaration from the Court as to the duties of Justice Minister Dorothy Lightbourne and the matters she must properly take into account in exercising her authority under the Extradition Treaty.
JLP parliamentarians yesterday blasted Golding for not acknowledging his involvement in hiring Manatt, Phelps & Phillips earlier.
But the Prime Minister insisted that he replied truthfully when asked whether the Government of Jamaica had engaged the law firm’s services.
caribbean360
caribbean360.com:
KINGSTON, Jamaica, Wednesday May 12, 2010 – A controversy surrounding efforts by the United States to have a drug accused extradited, and the Jamaica government’s resistance to those moves, yesterday became even more contentious as Prime Minister Bruce Golding admitted that he gave the nod for a law firm to be hired to lobby the US government on the extradition issue.
His admission was met with strong criticism across the floor of Parliament, even as he insisted the company was hired and paid by his Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and not the government.
Golding came clean on his involvement in the matter following weeks of allegations and claims that the government had engaged the services of US law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips to intervene as the US pushed its request for the extradition of Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke, a member of the JLP stronghold of West Kingston who is wanted on gun and drug charges in the US.
“I sanctioned the initiative, knowing that such interventions have in the past proven to be of considerable value in dealing with issues involving the governments of both countries. I made it clear, however, that this was an initiative to be undertaken by the Party, not by or on behalf of the government,” Golding said yesterday.
“A payment of US$49,892.62 was made to Manatt, Phelps & Phillips on September 18th 2009. These funds were sourced from financial contributors to the Party. Rumours and speculation carried in the media that these funds were provided by Christopher Coke are completely false as the Party is fully aware of the source of these funds,” he added.
Prime Minister Golding further insisted that there was “absolutely nothing illegally or surreptitious” about what had been done, arguing that the engagement of lobbyists to act on behalf of foreign governments, political parties or corporations is a well-known practice in the United States governed by law.
Golding has been strongly resisting the attempt to extradite Coke on the grounds that wire-tap evidence gathered by the US authorities in their case against him was illegally obtained.
He said that the Extradition Treaty between Jamaica and the US specifies the type of information that must be provided in support of a request for extradition and maintained that the information presented in the Coke matter is unacceptable because “it has been used in violation of Jamaican law and in contravention of the expressed order of a Judge of the Supreme Court”.
“For the (Justice) Minister to ignore this violation and issue the authorization to proceed would be to condone and legitimize this violation and would be a dereliction of duty,” he said, adding that although the Jamaica government wrote formally to the US authorities back in September 2009 requesting additional or separate information that would enable Justice Minister Dorothy Lightbourne to sign the authorization to proceed, the US has “steadfastly refused to do so”.
“I wish to make it clear that the government will, without hesitation, facilitate the extradition of any Jamaican citizen wanted to stand trial for extraditable offences once the obligations under the Treaty are met. Christopher Coke is wanted for an alleged crime in the US for which he ought to be tried and the government of Jamaica, consistent with its obligations under the Treaty, will do everything necessary to facilitate his extradition once it is done in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty and the laws of our country,” Golding told the Parliament.
“Some argue that this is a matter for the Courts and not the Minister to determine. They are wrong! As I have already pointed out, the Treaty makes it clear that information sufficient to allow the Minister to authorize extradition proceedings must be presented before the request is submitted to the Courts. What we have, therefore, is a dispute regarding the application of the Treaty. A treaty dispute cannot be resolved by the Courts of either party to the dispute. This is why we have used every conceivable means to resolve this dispute through dialogue with the US authorities.”
Prime Minister Golding said that since the controversy and the suggestion that the government's stand is motivated by partisan considerations, his administration retained the services of a senior attorney to seek a declaration from the Court as to the duties of Justice Minister Dorothy Lightbourne and the matters she must properly take into account in exercising her authority under the Extradition Treaty.
JLP parliamentarians yesterday blasted Golding for not acknowledging his involvement in hiring Manatt, Phelps & Phillips earlier.
But the Prime Minister insisted that he replied truthfully when asked whether the Government of Jamaica had engaged the law firm’s services.
caribbean360
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Belize abolishes appeals to Privy Council as of June 1
By Oscar Ramjeet:
It is now official.
Belize will abolish appeals to the Privy Council as of next month, June 1.
An Order to this effect was issued by the country's Prime Minister, Dean Barrow, which was advertised in the last issue of Belize Government Gazette and which stated that the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act and the Caribbean Court of Justice Act will come into effect on that date.
The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) will now replace the Privy Council as the highest Court of Appeal for Belize. This will not, however, affect appeals pending before the Privy Council on 31 May 2010.
Belize is the third country to have accepted the Appellate Jurisdiction of the CCJ, which was established on 14 February 2001. The other two are Guyana and Barbados.
The present seat of the CCJ is in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. However, the Agreement establishing the CCJ provides that the Court may sit in the territory of any other Contracting state as circumstances may require.
Moreover, the CCJ has the most modern technical facilities, including audio and video facilities and applications and interlocutory proceedings can be conducted via these media rather than by attorneys journeying to Port of Spain to make their presentations.
A Belize Government press release issued on Tuesday stated, "The removal of the age-old Privy Council as the highest court for Belize and its replacement by the CCJ represents a major landmark in the constitutional and legal history of Belize and has been widely welcomed among the Caribbean Community."
Guyana severed its link with the London based Privy Council since 1970 when the country attained republican status, and established its own court of appeal -- the Guyana Court of Appeal -- as its final court, and as a result litigants were only allowed one appeal in Guyana for a number of years until April 2005 when the CCJ was inaugurated.
Barbados retained the Privy Council until 2005 when it accepted the regional court as the final court.
Although the CCJ was established in 2001, discussions have been going on since 1988. I recall that Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago were in the forefront of its establishment, and it is unfortunate that neither of the two countries has up to this date rid itself of the Privy Council. However, both countries tried, but were prevented by a ruling of the said Privy Council that the procedure they adopted was wrong and that they require constitutional amendments.
However, I am optimistic that these two countries, which are considered the big countries in the region will sooner rather than later amend their Constitutions, thus paving way to join the appellate division of the CCJ.
Port of Spain is the headquarters of the CCJ and I feel that the twin island republic will take steps before the end of this year to put the mechanism in place to join the regional court, even if there is a change of government.
As a matter of fact, if Kamla Persad-Bissessar becomes the new prime minister, she being a Caribbean-trained attorney, will be anxious to have the regional court as the final appellate court, and I have no doubt that Patrick Manning will give his support, since he has always been in favour of the move, but the former opposition leader, Basdeo Panday was and still is against it.
Perhaps I should state that, since two thirds of the votes are required in a referendum to change the Constitution, the government must get the support of the opposition before it becomes a reality.
St Lucia, Dominica, and Grenada are also considering joining the CCJ. The Ralph Gonsalves administration in St Vincent and the Grenadines wanted to get on board, but it failed in its referendum to amend the constitution on November 25 last.
However, in my view, it is not that Vincentians do not want to remove the Privy Council as the final court, but the referendum was loaded with a series of constitutional amendments, including more powers to the Prime Minister, and a President to replace the Governor General.
The Antigua and Barbuda government is now engaged in a battle for survival following a recent court decision that declared three seats held by Ministers, including the Prime Minister, vacant on the ground that there were irregularities on election day, and as such the Baldwin Spencer administration is not now in a position to look into the issue.
May 12, 2010
caribbeannetnews
It is now official.
Belize will abolish appeals to the Privy Council as of next month, June 1.
An Order to this effect was issued by the country's Prime Minister, Dean Barrow, which was advertised in the last issue of Belize Government Gazette and which stated that the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act and the Caribbean Court of Justice Act will come into effect on that date. The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) will now replace the Privy Council as the highest Court of Appeal for Belize. This will not, however, affect appeals pending before the Privy Council on 31 May 2010.
Belize is the third country to have accepted the Appellate Jurisdiction of the CCJ, which was established on 14 February 2001. The other two are Guyana and Barbados.
The present seat of the CCJ is in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. However, the Agreement establishing the CCJ provides that the Court may sit in the territory of any other Contracting state as circumstances may require.
Moreover, the CCJ has the most modern technical facilities, including audio and video facilities and applications and interlocutory proceedings can be conducted via these media rather than by attorneys journeying to Port of Spain to make their presentations.
A Belize Government press release issued on Tuesday stated, "The removal of the age-old Privy Council as the highest court for Belize and its replacement by the CCJ represents a major landmark in the constitutional and legal history of Belize and has been widely welcomed among the Caribbean Community."
Guyana severed its link with the London based Privy Council since 1970 when the country attained republican status, and established its own court of appeal -- the Guyana Court of Appeal -- as its final court, and as a result litigants were only allowed one appeal in Guyana for a number of years until April 2005 when the CCJ was inaugurated.
Barbados retained the Privy Council until 2005 when it accepted the regional court as the final court.
Although the CCJ was established in 2001, discussions have been going on since 1988. I recall that Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago were in the forefront of its establishment, and it is unfortunate that neither of the two countries has up to this date rid itself of the Privy Council. However, both countries tried, but were prevented by a ruling of the said Privy Council that the procedure they adopted was wrong and that they require constitutional amendments.
However, I am optimistic that these two countries, which are considered the big countries in the region will sooner rather than later amend their Constitutions, thus paving way to join the appellate division of the CCJ.
Port of Spain is the headquarters of the CCJ and I feel that the twin island republic will take steps before the end of this year to put the mechanism in place to join the regional court, even if there is a change of government.
As a matter of fact, if Kamla Persad-Bissessar becomes the new prime minister, she being a Caribbean-trained attorney, will be anxious to have the regional court as the final appellate court, and I have no doubt that Patrick Manning will give his support, since he has always been in favour of the move, but the former opposition leader, Basdeo Panday was and still is against it.
Perhaps I should state that, since two thirds of the votes are required in a referendum to change the Constitution, the government must get the support of the opposition before it becomes a reality.
St Lucia, Dominica, and Grenada are also considering joining the CCJ. The Ralph Gonsalves administration in St Vincent and the Grenadines wanted to get on board, but it failed in its referendum to amend the constitution on November 25 last.
However, in my view, it is not that Vincentians do not want to remove the Privy Council as the final court, but the referendum was loaded with a series of constitutional amendments, including more powers to the Prime Minister, and a President to replace the Governor General.
The Antigua and Barbuda government is now engaged in a battle for survival following a recent court decision that declared three seats held by Ministers, including the Prime Minister, vacant on the ground that there were irregularities on election day, and as such the Baldwin Spencer administration is not now in a position to look into the issue.
May 12, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The odious tyranny imposed on the world
Reflections of Fidel
OUR era is characterized by an unprecedented fact: the threat to human survival imposed on the world by imperialism.
The painful reality should not come as a surprise to anybody. We have seen it coming at an accelerated pace in recent decades, at a rate difficult to imagine.
Does this mean that Obama is responsible for or the promoter of that threat? No! It simply demonstrates that he is ignoring reality and neither wants to or would to able to overcome it. Or rather, he is dreaming of the unreal in an unreal world. "Ideas without words, words without meaning," as a brilliant poet once stated.
Although the U.S. writer Gay Talese, considered to be one of the principal representatives of the new journalism, affirmed on May 5 – according to a European news agency – that Barack Obama embodies the finest history of the United States in the last century, an opinion that could be shared in certain aspects, in no way does that alter the objective reality of the human destiny.
Events are happening, like the ecological disaster that has just occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, which demonstrate how little governments can do against those who control capital; those who, in both the United States and Europe, via the economy of our globalized planet, are the ones who decide the destiny of the peoples. We could take as one example measures coming from the U.S. Congress itself, published in the most influential media of that country and Europe, just as they have been circulated on Internet, without altering one word.
"Radio and TV Martí blatantly lie while broadcasting unfounded information, states a report by the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which recommends that both stations be permanently moved from Miami and relocated in Washington and be ‘fully’ integrated into the propaganda framework of Voice of America (VOA).
"Besides deceiving the public… both broadcasting stations use ‘offensive and incendiary language,’ which discredits them.
"After 18 years, Radio and TV Martí have failed to ‘make any discernable inroads into Cuban society or to influence the Cuban government…’
"The report, which was circulated this Monday [May 3], recommends that the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB) become part of VOA, the official propaganda radio of the U.S. government.
"’Problems with adherence to traditional journalistic standards, miniscule audience size, Cuban government jamming, and allegations of cronyism have dogged the program since its creation,’" recognized the committee, headed by Democrat John Kerry."
"The committee recommends urgently removing both stations from Miami, highlighting the need to hire personnel in a more balanced way to produce a ‘depoliticized and professional product.’
"In the report, Kerry makes reference to Alberto Mascaró, the nephew of Pedro Roig’s wife—Roig is the general director of Radio and TV Marti—who was hired as the director of VOA Latin America thanks to his relative.
"The document reports in detail how, in February 2007, the former director of the TV Marti programs, "along with a relative of a member of Congress" (who was not named), pleaded guilty in the Federal Court to receiving $112,000 in illegal kickbacks from an OCB contractor. "The former OCB employee was sentenced to 27 months in jail and fined $5,000 after being found guilty for taking as much as 50% of all monies paid by TV Martí for the production of television programming by vendor Perfect Image."
Up to here, the Jean Guy Allard article that appeared on the Telesur website.
Another article, by U.S. professors Paul Drain and Michele Barry, from Stanford University (California), translated on the Rebelión website, states:
"The US blockade on Cuba proclaimed after Fidel Castro’s revolution ousted Batista’s regime is 50 years old this 2010. Its stated objective has been to help the Cuban people to attain democracy but a U.S. Senate report from 2009 concluded that ‘the unilateral blockade on Cuba has failed.’
"…despite the blockade, Cuba has achieved better healthcare results than most Latin American countries and comparable with those of most of the developed nations. Cuba’s average life expectancy is the highest (78.6 years) and it also has the highest density of medical doctors per capita – 59 doctors to 10,000 people – and the lowest mortality rate for children under one year of age (5.0 per 1,000 life births) and infant mortality (7.0 per 1,000 live births) among the 33 countries of Latin America and the Caribbean.
"In 2006, the Cuban government allocated about $355 per capita for healthcare" … "The annual healthcare cost assigned to an American citizen that same year was $6,714… Cuba also assigned less funds to healthcare than most of the European countries. But, the low costs of healthcare do not explain Cuba’s successes, which could be attributed to a greater emphasis on prevention and primary care that the island has been cultivating during the American commercial blockade.
"Cuba has one of the most advanced primary care systems of the world. The education of its population in disease prevention and healthcare promotion has made the Cubans less dependent on medical products to keep the population healthy. The opposite happens in the United States, which is highly dependent on medical provisions and technologies to keep its population healthy, but at a very high economic cost.
"Cuba has the highest rates of vaccination in the world as well as the highest number of births assisted by expert healthcare workers. The clinical care provided in doctors’ offices, policlinics and the largest regional and national hospitals are free of charge for patients…
"On March 2010, the U.S. Congress introduced a bill to strengthen healthcare systems and increase the number of healthcare experts sent to developing countries… "Cuba continues sending doctors to work in some of the poorest nations on the planet, something it started doing in 1961.
"Given the recent support for healthcare reform in the United States, the possibility exists of learning some good lessons from Cuba on how to develop a really universal healthcare system with an emphasis on primary care. The adoption of some of Cuba’s most successful healthcare policies could be a first step toward the normalization of relations. The U.S. Congress could instruct the Medicine Institute to study the successes of Cuba’s healthcare system and how to start a new era of cooperation between American and Cuban scientists."
For its part, the Tribuna Latina news website recently published an article on the new Immigration Law in Arizona:
"According to a survey published by the CBS network and The New York Times, 51% consider that the law is an appropriate focus in relation to immigration, while 9% consider that it should go even further on this matter. Opposing them, 36% think that Arizona has gone ‘too far.’"
"…two out of every three Republicans are backing the measure"… "while just 38% of Democrats say that they are in favor of the law…"
"On the other hand, one out of every two recognizes that, as a consequence of this regulation, it is ‘highly probable that persons from certain racial or ethnic groups will be detained more frequently than others,’ and 78% recognize that it will pose more burdens for the police.
"At the same time, 70% consider it probable, as a consequence of this measure, that the number of illegal residents and the arrival of new immigrants in the country will be reduced…’"
On Tuesday, May 6, 2010, under the headline "Arizona: a pretentious death from hunger," an article by journalist Vicky Peláez was published in Argenpress, which begins by recalling a phrase by Franklin D. Roosevelt: "Remember, always remember, that we are all descendants of immigrants and revolutionaries."
It is such a well-argued document that I do not wish to conclude this Reflection without including it.
"The huge marches of this May Day condemning the pernicious anti-immigration law passed in Arizona, have shaken all of the United States. At the same time, thousands of Americans, politicians, jurists, artists, organizations, civil organizations demanded that the federal government declare unconstitutional Law SB170, which resembles laws passed in Nazi Germany or South Africa in the apartheid period.
"However, despite fierce pressure against the pernicious law, neither their government nor 70% of the inhabitants of that state wish to accept the gravity of the situation that they have created in order to blame undocumented immigrants for the severe economic crisis that they are experiencing. Meanwhile, they are asking Barack Obama for money to pay 15,000 police; they are radicalizing their racist policies. Governor Jan Brewer stated that ‘illegal immigration implies rising crime and the emergence of terrorism in the state.’
"Placing undocumented immigrants on the same plane as terrorists authorizes the police to fire on people simply on the basis of the color of their skin, their clothing, what they are carrying in their hands or even their way of walking. Without any doubt, this will also affect the 280,000 Native Americans who live marginalized and in extreme poverty, as well as other minorities in addition to Hispanics, who have found refuge and work in this arid zone of the United States.
"Following the line of Republican Pat Buchanan, who says, ‘The United States must make a stronger crusade for America’s liberation from the barbarian hordes of hungry foreigners carrying exotic diseases,’ after hitting out at undocumented day laborers, construction workers, domestic employees, gardeners and cleaners, Governor Brewer has now directed her campaign against teachers of Hispanic origin.
"According to her new decree, teachers with a marked accent will not be able to teach in schools. But her crusade does not end there because, in all historical periods, ‘ethnic cleansing’ has always been accompanied by ideology. From now on, ‘ethnic studies and projects’ are abolished in schools. They are also banning the teaching of subjects that could promote resentment of a certain race or social class. This implies politicizing knowledge, converting myths created by the U.S. system into a reality. It also signifies exhuming the most respected thinkers in the United States such as Alexis de Tocqueville who, in 1835, said that ‘the place where an Anglo-American sets his boot is forever his. The province of Texas still belongs to Mexicans but soon there will not be one Mexican there. And that will happen anywhere.
"The sole consciousness of racists is hatred and the only weapon that can overcome it is the solidarity of human beings. This state was already defeated when it refused to make Martin Luther King Day a public holiday; the boycott was solid and overwhelming…"
Fidel Castro Ruz
May 7, 2010
6:15 p.m.
Translated by Granma International
granma.cu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)