Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Mauritania: Health And Sanitation Next Obstacle After Flooding
http://allafrica.com/stories/200708141061.html
West Africa: A Hope "To Link the Efforts of All the Actors" in Fighting Desertification
http://allafrica.com/stories/200708140024.html
Friday, August 10, 2007
Flash Flood Displaces Thousands in Mauritania
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=73664
Heavy rainfall in the southeastern town of Titane in Mauritania has killed a few (so far), damaged houses and displaced thousands of people. Starting Aug 7, the country received 81.5mm of rain in a 24-hour period. Just a few days ago, the country was still facing the fear of drought, and President Abdullahi urged its religious leaders to pray for rain (http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=73534). Their prayers were definitely answered- way too much indeed. It's rare for this country to get so much rainfall in one day. The damages of such natural disaster are intensified when the mountain chain in the region have no trees to hold the rainfall, accelerating the rate of the water traveling to the town in the lowlands; the soil in the region is impermeable, lowering the rate of the dissipation of water; and many houses are made of dried mud, which collapsed easily when confront such heavy downpour.
No matter how developed a country is, it becomes vulnerable when confronted with natural phenomenons, which are out of its control. Even strong nations like the U.S. can be defeated when faced with a disaster like Hurricane Katrina. This article reminds me of how important it is for a country to consider natural disasters when making development plans. If the infrastructure, houses, and other projects cannot withstand the challenges of natural disasters, which can come anytime, then not only will it be a waste of resources and money, it will also devastate the lives of its people (or even make their lives worse than before). For example, the article mentions that the rain has knocked down more than 1000 date palm trees. I posted an entry at the end of July about Qatar's donation to a project to plant 50 hectares of trees as an effort to combat desertification. If such a project was implemented in this region, the rainfall would have destroyed the planted trees, then all the resources would have been wasted. Also, the country should have emergency management plans for natural disasters in order to expedite the process of helping, saving, delivering food to and providing shelter for the people affected and minimize the damages.
Heavy rainfall in the southeastern town of Titane in Mauritania has killed a few (so far), damaged houses and displaced thousands of people. Starting Aug 7, the country received 81.5mm of rain in a 24-hour period. Just a few days ago, the country was still facing the fear of drought, and President Abdullahi urged its religious leaders to pray for rain (http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=73534). Their prayers were definitely answered- way too much indeed. It's rare for this country to get so much rainfall in one day. The damages of such natural disaster are intensified when the mountain chain in the region have no trees to hold the rainfall, accelerating the rate of the water traveling to the town in the lowlands; the soil in the region is impermeable, lowering the rate of the dissipation of water; and many houses are made of dried mud, which collapsed easily when confront such heavy downpour.
No matter how developed a country is, it becomes vulnerable when confronted with natural phenomenons, which are out of its control. Even strong nations like the U.S. can be defeated when faced with a disaster like Hurricane Katrina. This article reminds me of how important it is for a country to consider natural disasters when making development plans. If the infrastructure, houses, and other projects cannot withstand the challenges of natural disasters, which can come anytime, then not only will it be a waste of resources and money, it will also devastate the lives of its people (or even make their lives worse than before). For example, the article mentions that the rain has knocked down more than 1000 date palm trees. I posted an entry at the end of July about Qatar's donation to a project to plant 50 hectares of trees as an effort to combat desertification. If such a project was implemented in this region, the rainfall would have destroyed the planted trees, then all the resources would have been wasted. Also, the country should have emergency management plans for natural disasters in order to expedite the process of helping, saving, delivering food to and providing shelter for the people affected and minimize the damages.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Mauritanian MPs Pass Slavery Law
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6938032.stm
Good news for Mauritania! Its Parliament just passed a legislation that punishes the practice of slavery with up to 10 years in prison, and the promotion of such practice with two years. Even though slavery was banned in 1981, it remains a serious problem in Mauritania. According to the article, up to 20% of the population are slaves. I hope that the government will actually enforce the legislation and put more resources into hunting down people involved in the practice of slavery. After all, if you don't go and catch those people, they will just ignore the law. Also, I think the punishment for both the practice and the promotion should be more severe. Two years is really not that long; by the time they are released, the only lesson that they will have learnt is to be more careful, and then will will be back into the lucrative business. Moreover, if the Mauritanian government is serious about eradicating slavery, they should come up with a better and more concrete definition of what constitutes the practice of slavery and the promotion of the the practice of slavery. Having that said, I do want to say "Bravo!" to Mauritania for taking the first step. The passing of the legislation has definitely brought hope for future dialogues and actions to combat slavery!
Good news for Mauritania! Its Parliament just passed a legislation that punishes the practice of slavery with up to 10 years in prison, and the promotion of such practice with two years. Even though slavery was banned in 1981, it remains a serious problem in Mauritania. According to the article, up to 20% of the population are slaves. I hope that the government will actually enforce the legislation and put more resources into hunting down people involved in the practice of slavery. After all, if you don't go and catch those people, they will just ignore the law. Also, I think the punishment for both the practice and the promotion should be more severe. Two years is really not that long; by the time they are released, the only lesson that they will have learnt is to be more careful, and then will will be back into the lucrative business. Moreover, if the Mauritanian government is serious about eradicating slavery, they should come up with a better and more concrete definition of what constitutes the practice of slavery and the promotion of the the practice of slavery. Having that said, I do want to say "Bravo!" to Mauritania for taking the first step. The passing of the legislation has definitely brought hope for future dialogues and actions to combat slavery!
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Film to be Made about the 6 Bulgairan Medics
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6934903.stm
What does Hollywood NOT turn into a movie? Does it really take a Hollywood movie to get the world to care about injustices and issues that are happening all over the world? Sam Feuer, president of Sixth Sense Productions (which also produced Hotel Rwanda), justifies the making of the movie about the 6 Bulgarian medics by saying:
'...the story of The Benghazi Six would be "inspirational".
What does Hollywood NOT turn into a movie? Does it really take a Hollywood movie to get the world to care about injustices and issues that are happening all over the world? Sam Feuer, president of Sixth Sense Productions (which also produced Hotel Rwanda), justifies the making of the movie about the 6 Bulgarian medics by saying:
'...the story of The Benghazi Six would be "inspirational".
Speaking to Reuters, he said: "The world needs to learn about this injustice. It's not just a Bulgarian story, it's a human story that the world will relate to and learn from."
Mr Feuer confirmed his company is approaching some Hollywood stars.
"Our job is to develop the best script possible that will attract them," he said.'
While I appreciate his intention of educating the world about injustices, if he really means it, I do not think making a Hollywood movie will achieve that purpose. Think about Hotel Rwanda. How many people actually still continued FEELING something AFTER the movie was over? How many of them tried to educate themselves about the complexities of the issue? Then think about how many people said "it's horrible" then continued eating their dinner as if nothing ever happened? It gets more dangerous when Hollywood stars are playing the roles, because the media have rendered ordinary people incapable of distinguishing the fabulous celebrity lifestyle from reality. Having Hollywood stars play these roles will only undermine the message of the event. What I find the most ridiculous about what he said was that their job is "to develop the best script possible that will attract them." Isn't he a bit self-contradictory by saying that? If the event is significant enough, as he claims, shouldn't that already attract the stars? It seems like he thinks that the event is not important enough that they need to change the script, distort some facts, stray from the truth so make it a more important issue to attract the stars. Well I bet (some of) these stars that they are going to find have no Bulgarian origins at all!
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Mauritania: President Calls On Nation to Pray for Rain
http://allafrica.com/stories/200708010754.html
Officials Fear Drug Activities Increasing in Mauritania
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-08-02-voa19.cfm?rss=africa
Analysts Debate Mauritanian Anti-Slavery Proposal
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-08-01-voa40.cfm?rss=human%20rights%20and%20law
The article talks about a proposed anti-slavery legislation that aims to make the practice of slavery punishable. The legislation has been criticized for not severe enough (10 years of imprisonment and fines for practicing slavery) and only something to show human rights organization. Hadouma, a former slave, shared her story of being a slave. She became a slave since her childhood, working for her master and his neighbors. Her parent were also slaves, and her four children (whose father, as she/ the article implied, might be her master) were taken away from her to become slaves. Basically, if she did not escape seven years ago, she would not have the chance to find her daughters right now, and their children will possibly be enslaved by their masters too. So is 10 years of imprisonment enough for not only enslaving someone for a big part of her life, but also the generations before and after her? NO! Also, the legislation will have no effect on people if it is not enforced, like the law passed in 1981 that bans the practice of slavery which has FAILED COMPLETELY to stop slavery. I see light in such legislation, but I hope that the government is serious about it, not just using it to silence human rights groups. I also hope that the legislation will be amended to make it more severe. No matter what, I do hope that the legislation will be passed because at least it is a form of action to combat slavery (despite its true intention), instead of constantly debating and talking but not taking actions!
The article talks about a proposed anti-slavery legislation that aims to make the practice of slavery punishable. The legislation has been criticized for not severe enough (10 years of imprisonment and fines for practicing slavery) and only something to show human rights organization. Hadouma, a former slave, shared her story of being a slave. She became a slave since her childhood, working for her master and his neighbors. Her parent were also slaves, and her four children (whose father, as she/ the article implied, might be her master) were taken away from her to become slaves. Basically, if she did not escape seven years ago, she would not have the chance to find her daughters right now, and their children will possibly be enslaved by their masters too. So is 10 years of imprisonment enough for not only enslaving someone for a big part of her life, but also the generations before and after her? NO! Also, the legislation will have no effect on people if it is not enforced, like the law passed in 1981 that bans the practice of slavery which has FAILED COMPLETELY to stop slavery. I see light in such legislation, but I hope that the government is serious about it, not just using it to silence human rights groups. I also hope that the legislation will be amended to make it more severe. No matter what, I do hope that the legislation will be passed because at least it is a form of action to combat slavery (despite its true intention), instead of constantly debating and talking but not taking actions!
Sudan, China to Build $630 mln Mauritania Railway
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article23140
Sudan's Danfodio Holding and China's Transtech Engineering have recently signed an agreement with private Mauritania investors to build a railway in Mauritania that would link its capital Nouakchott to Bofal, where phosphate deposits are located. The purpose of the building of the railway was announced in a matter-of-factly way as the exploitation of resources. The article quotes Mauritanian Transport Minister saying:
"This line will allow the exploitation of the Bofal deposits and open up isolated areas of Mauritania with considerable animal, agricultural and mineral resources."I am skeptical about the benefits that a railway owned by TNCs would bring to the PEOPLE of Mauritania. Is it really going to help the development of the country? I doubt it. As the Transport Minister said (and how could he do this to his country?), the purpose of the railway is to extract resources out, most of which will most likely go to the TNCs instead of its people. If the agreement were signed by the governments of Sudan and China, there might still be a chance that they signed it with a true intention of helping Mauritania. But it was signed by corporations, whose sole purpose is to make more and more profits, and who will not invest money in anything that will not bring them more profits. I wonder how the PEOPLE of Mauritania feel about their fate being decided by these TNCs?
Sudan's Danfodio Holding and China's Transtech Engineering have recently signed an agreement with private Mauritania investors to build a railway in Mauritania that would link its capital Nouakchott to Bofal, where phosphate deposits are located. The purpose of the building of the railway was announced in a matter-of-factly way as the exploitation of resources. The article quotes Mauritanian Transport Minister saying:
"This line will allow the exploitation of the Bofal deposits and open up isolated areas of Mauritania with considerable animal, agricultural and mineral resources."I am skeptical about the benefits that a railway owned by TNCs would bring to the PEOPLE of Mauritania. Is it really going to help the development of the country? I doubt it. As the Transport Minister said (and how could he do this to his country?), the purpose of the railway is to extract resources out, most of which will most likely go to the TNCs instead of its people. If the agreement were signed by the governments of Sudan and China, there might still be a chance that they signed it with a true intention of helping Mauritania. But it was signed by corporations, whose sole purpose is to make more and more profits, and who will not invest money in anything that will not bring them more profits. I wonder how the PEOPLE of Mauritania feel about their fate being decided by these TNCs?
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Child Soldiers "Need Mental Help"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6925384.stm
I think reports like the one mentioned in the article is just irresponsible. The report claims that child soldiers suffer from post-traumatic stress, rendering them less likely to consider reconciliation, hence contributing to cycle of violence in war-torn regions where they are employed. The rhetoric of the report (or it could just be the rhetoric of BBC) seems to shift the blame to the "mental illness" of these children as the cause of the continuous violence in war zones. According to BBC, the report says,
"Their mental distress could 'impose barriers to sustainable and long-term peace building...'"
I agree that wars have psychological effects on children, but I don't think we focusing on giving them mental help is going to solve the problem. Are they going to feel better if, after they talk to a shrink and are treated for their illness, they still live in war zones or are recruited by force and violence as soldiers again? These children are not the reason why wars started in the first place- they are just the victims of wars (and victims should not be blamed for what victimizes them). Their "mental illness" (if they have any) does not perpetuate wars- the people who started the wars do. What they need for us to do is to give them LOVE, PROTECT them, STOP VIOLENCE against them, provide them with SHELTERS where they can enjoy their RIGHTS to be CHILDREN, and most importantly, STOP the wars; they do not need mental help. Why don't the researchers go ask those children what they want and see if they'll answer "mental help"?
I think reports like the one mentioned in the article is just irresponsible. The report claims that child soldiers suffer from post-traumatic stress, rendering them less likely to consider reconciliation, hence contributing to cycle of violence in war-torn regions where they are employed. The rhetoric of the report (or it could just be the rhetoric of BBC) seems to shift the blame to the "mental illness" of these children as the cause of the continuous violence in war zones. According to BBC, the report says,
"Their mental distress could 'impose barriers to sustainable and long-term peace building...'"
I agree that wars have psychological effects on children, but I don't think we focusing on giving them mental help is going to solve the problem. Are they going to feel better if, after they talk to a shrink and are treated for their illness, they still live in war zones or are recruited by force and violence as soldiers again? These children are not the reason why wars started in the first place- they are just the victims of wars (and victims should not be blamed for what victimizes them). Their "mental illness" (if they have any) does not perpetuate wars- the people who started the wars do. What they need for us to do is to give them LOVE, PROTECT them, STOP VIOLENCE against them, provide them with SHELTERS where they can enjoy their RIGHTS to be CHILDREN, and most importantly, STOP the wars; they do not need mental help. Why don't the researchers go ask those children what they want and see if they'll answer "mental help"?
Mauritania Gets Aid to Combat Desertification
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=164139&version=1&template_id=36&parent_id=16
This article talks about Qatar's commitment to help Mauritania combat desertification. Mauritania is mostly made up of desert, and desertification is a big problem for the country, hindering development and fight against poverty. Qatar's donation will be dedicated to helping Qasram village (with 600 families) by planting trees native to the region on 50 hectares of land.The trees will help hold down the soil, halt the spread of deserts, change the climate and make the land suitable for agriculture, which is a major source of living for the population, again. It seems like it's not the first time Qatar is helping Mauritania with its environmental problems. Qatar also helped Mauritania a few years ago with an invasion of locusts. I hope that its efforts to help Mauritania will continue, because planting trees is just the first step in a long journey. It seems like a lot of maintenance work is needed for trees to grow healthily in such harsh weather, such as ensuring a source of water. Also, planting trees do not target the root of the problem- human activities. Desertification is caused primarily by human activities, such as over-exploitation, inefficient water irrigation system, grazing of livestock, etc. I hope that more will be done to target the causes of desertification!
I wonder whether there are other countries helping Mauritania, especially the "leaders" of the world? What do you think about planting trees as a method to stop desertification?
This article talks about Qatar's commitment to help Mauritania combat desertification. Mauritania is mostly made up of desert, and desertification is a big problem for the country, hindering development and fight against poverty. Qatar's donation will be dedicated to helping Qasram village (with 600 families) by planting trees native to the region on 50 hectares of land.The trees will help hold down the soil, halt the spread of deserts, change the climate and make the land suitable for agriculture, which is a major source of living for the population, again. It seems like it's not the first time Qatar is helping Mauritania with its environmental problems. Qatar also helped Mauritania a few years ago with an invasion of locusts. I hope that its efforts to help Mauritania will continue, because planting trees is just the first step in a long journey. It seems like a lot of maintenance work is needed for trees to grow healthily in such harsh weather, such as ensuring a source of water. Also, planting trees do not target the root of the problem- human activities. Desertification is caused primarily by human activities, such as over-exploitation, inefficient water irrigation system, grazing of livestock, etc. I hope that more will be done to target the causes of desertification!
I wonder whether there are other countries helping Mauritania, especially the "leaders" of the world? What do you think about planting trees as a method to stop desertification?
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Mauritania: An Introduction
For a few days now, I've been talking about Mauritania because it's my assigned country. But through talking to my friends, I realized how little people know about it- if they'd heard of Mauritania at all. So I found this article from LexisNexis- I'm posting the full article here to save you the troubling of logging into the Library website, then LexisNexis. It offers a nice and brief introduction to Mauritania.
Copyright 2007 Quest Information Limited
All Rights Reserved
Quest Economics Database
World of Information Africa Review World of Information
1800s France gained control of Mauritania, ruling it from Senegal.
1957 Limited self-government was granted under the Loi cadre.
1960 Mauritania gained full independence from France under the regime of the Mauritanian People's Party. Mokhtar Ould Daddah became president.
1974 Mauritania withdrew from the CFAf currency zone and introduced the ouguiya.
1975 An agreement between Mauritania, Morocco and Spain led to the division of the Spanish Sahara (a Spanish colony and the present-day Sahrawi Arab Republic (Western Sahara)) between Mauritania and Morocco.
1978 After fighting a largely unsuccessful war against rebels of the Western Sahara, President Daddah was overthrown.
1979 The government of President Haidallah agreed to renounce all territorial claims to Western Sahara.
1981 Slavery was banned in Mauritania.
1984 Haidallah was removed from office by Colonel Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmed Taya.
1992 Multi-party elections were held in which President Taya was returned to office.
1996 The governing Parti Républicain Démocratique et Social (PRDS) (Social and Democratic Republican Party) won the elections.
1997 President Taya was re-elected.
1999 Full diplomatic relations were established with Israel. After criticism by Iraq, the foreign ministry announced that Mauritania had severed its relations with Iraq.
2001 The PRDS was re-elected.
2002 Famine increased due to three years of drought.
2003 The OPEC Fund for International Development donated US$300,000 to support an emergency operation by the World Food Programme (WFP). A coup attempt by rebels in Nouakchott was foiled by the President's troops on 9 June. On 6 July, President Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmed Taya named Sghair Ould M'Bareck as the new prime minister. Incumbent Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmed Taya was re-elected president in the 7 November elections. On 12 November, Prime Minister Sghair Ould M'Bareck was re-appointed.
2004 In January, a team of US military experts began training the Mauritanian army.
2005 Mauritania lost its crop production, which had been attacked by the locust swarms in 2004. The UN called for food aid. On 3 August, while President Taya was out of the country, a military coup overthrew his regime. Colonel Ely Ould Mohamed Vall (leader of the military Junta) was declared president and head of the Military Council for Justice and Democracy. 2006 A referendum was held on 24 June 2006, which approved limitations on future presidential powers. Parliamentary and municipal elections took place on 19 November and 3 December.
2007 In presidential elections Sidi Mohamed Ould Cheikh Abdellahi won 24.8 per cent of the vote and Ahmed Ould Daddah won 20.7 per cent. A runoff is scheduled to be held 25 March.
Copyright: World of Information. All rights reserved World of Information and Quest Information Ltd assume no liability for the consequence of reliance upon any opinion or statement
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Nationality as a Basic Human Right
http://allafrica.com/stories/200707231252.html
This article is from last week, but it's one of the latest I can find. It's about the recently elected (March 2007) president Abdallahi's government's promise to black Mauritanian refugees in Senegal. In 1989, ethnic tensions in the country betweem Moorish Mauritanians and Black Mauritanians drove many Black Mauritanians to Senegal. The new government promised to end their suffering all these years by restoring their rights to citizenship and their rights to restore their property and live in dignity.
Many of these refugees have lived most of their lives, if not all, in statelessness. They're neither Mauritanians nor Senegalese. I am touched when one of the refugees speaks of nationality as a basic human rights. Nationality is something that many of us take for granted that we do not realize how important it is to our identity. Even though many of these refugees know that life will be difficult when they return to Mauritania, they are still willing to risk because they want to belong to somewhere; they want dignity and identity. I hope that Mauritanian government won't fail to deliver their promise!
After reading this article, I feel very lucky to have a nationality and knowing that under normal circumstances, my nationality won't be taken away from me. It makes me feel like I belong somewhere, no matter how far I am from home. I also feel protected, knowing that no matter what happens to me overseas, my government will assist me and protect me.
This article is from last week, but it's one of the latest I can find. It's about the recently elected (March 2007) president Abdallahi's government's promise to black Mauritanian refugees in Senegal. In 1989, ethnic tensions in the country betweem Moorish Mauritanians and Black Mauritanians drove many Black Mauritanians to Senegal. The new government promised to end their suffering all these years by restoring their rights to citizenship and their rights to restore their property and live in dignity.
Many of these refugees have lived most of their lives, if not all, in statelessness. They're neither Mauritanians nor Senegalese. I am touched when one of the refugees speaks of nationality as a basic human rights. Nationality is something that many of us take for granted that we do not realize how important it is to our identity. Even though many of these refugees know that life will be difficult when they return to Mauritania, they are still willing to risk because they want to belong to somewhere; they want dignity and identity. I hope that Mauritanian government won't fail to deliver their promise!
After reading this article, I feel very lucky to have a nationality and knowing that under normal circumstances, my nationality won't be taken away from me. It makes me feel like I belong somewhere, no matter how far I am from home. I also feel protected, knowing that no matter what happens to me overseas, my government will assist me and protect me.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Fat and Beautiful
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3429903.stm
This article is a bit old- it dates back to 2004 to be exact. I came across it when I was looking for Mauritania news in English (there are several websites in English, but they are not updated on a daily basis. Anyone knows of a good website?), and found it very interesting.
Among white Moor Arabs in Mauritania, force-feeding is still practiced on girls in an attempt to make them fat. Traditionally, fatness is regarded as a sign of wealth and beauty. A fat woman is more desirable than a thin woman. There are even "fat farms," where parents send their girls to be fed a lot of food so they will become fat. If the girl refuses to eat, her parents punish her.
"When they are small they don't understand, but when they grow up they are fat and beautiful," said Fatematou, a "fat farm" manager. She argued that in the end, the girls were grateful. "They are proud and show off their good size to make men dribble."
As a country develops, its culture changes. While some beliefs are retained, others evolve. Today, the view of fatness being desirable is being labeled as "old-fashioned." As of 2004, only one in 10 girls were treated with force feeding. Men started to look for thin women. "Fat" and "beautiful" do not co-exist anymore.
This prompts me to think about what development means for cultural values. Why is there a change in belief? Why did men start thinking that thin women are more attractive then fat ones (this is afterall the main reason why women want to gain or lose weight)? If Mauritania had never developed, had never had contacts with outside world (esp. the West), if Mauritania was a world of its own isolated from the rest of the world, would the belief that fatness is beauty have changed? (I'm not advocating for force-feeding- it harms people and should be eliminated. Nor am I saying that fatness is good. The state of well-being of people should be one of the concerns as a country develops, and being obese definitely brings health issues. However, most women want to be thin in order to be more desirable and socially acceptable, and this is the result of a change in cultural values.)
If development is supposed to improve people's lives, why is it not improving those of women's? Why is it that, even in developed nations, the idea of "fat= beauty" has evolved into "thin= beauty," instead of "appearance should not matter" or " 'fat' and 'thin' are just two neutral adjectives with neither positive or negative connotations"? In the end, women are the ones to suffer. They either have to be forced-fed or starve themselves to death so that they are desirable. The girls who were force-fed, or are still being force-fed, in Mauritania, will now have to starve themselves, if they, according to Fatematou, "...want to find a man, a European or a Mauritanian..."
This article is a bit old- it dates back to 2004 to be exact. I came across it when I was looking for Mauritania news in English (there are several websites in English, but they are not updated on a daily basis. Anyone knows of a good website?), and found it very interesting.
Among white Moor Arabs in Mauritania, force-feeding is still practiced on girls in an attempt to make them fat. Traditionally, fatness is regarded as a sign of wealth and beauty. A fat woman is more desirable than a thin woman. There are even "fat farms," where parents send their girls to be fed a lot of food so they will become fat. If the girl refuses to eat, her parents punish her.
"When they are small they don't understand, but when they grow up they are fat and beautiful," said Fatematou, a "fat farm" manager. She argued that in the end, the girls were grateful. "They are proud and show off their good size to make men dribble."
As a country develops, its culture changes. While some beliefs are retained, others evolve. Today, the view of fatness being desirable is being labeled as "old-fashioned." As of 2004, only one in 10 girls were treated with force feeding. Men started to look for thin women. "Fat" and "beautiful" do not co-exist anymore.
This prompts me to think about what development means for cultural values. Why is there a change in belief? Why did men start thinking that thin women are more attractive then fat ones (this is afterall the main reason why women want to gain or lose weight)? If Mauritania had never developed, had never had contacts with outside world (esp. the West), if Mauritania was a world of its own isolated from the rest of the world, would the belief that fatness is beauty have changed? (I'm not advocating for force-feeding- it harms people and should be eliminated. Nor am I saying that fatness is good. The state of well-being of people should be one of the concerns as a country develops, and being obese definitely brings health issues. However, most women want to be thin in order to be more desirable and socially acceptable, and this is the result of a change in cultural values.)
If development is supposed to improve people's lives, why is it not improving those of women's? Why is it that, even in developed nations, the idea of "fat= beauty" has evolved into "thin= beauty," instead of "appearance should not matter" or " 'fat' and 'thin' are just two neutral adjectives with neither positive or negative connotations"? In the end, women are the ones to suffer. They either have to be forced-fed or starve themselves to death so that they are desirable. The girls who were force-fed, or are still being force-fed, in Mauritania, will now have to starve themselves, if they, according to Fatematou, "...want to find a man, a European or a Mauritanian..."
Friday, July 27, 2007
Mauritanian Women Fight Against Female Genital Mutilation
Source:
http://www.wfn.org/2007/07/msg00159.html
This article is about Mauritanian women fighting for erasing the exercise of female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female circumcision. FGM is mainly practiced in Africa and some countries in Asia in the Middle East. It is also increasingly practiced in Europe, North America, and Australia by immigrants. FGM brings many immediate and long-term health and psychological consequences, ranging from severe pain and urination problems to painful sexual intercourse, difficulties with child birth, contraction of HIV and depression.
FGM is performed for different reasons: cultural, religious, sociological, etc. For example, in some cultures, it is performed to maintain chastity and virginity before marriage, SUPPRESS SEXUAL DESIRE IN THE FEMALE WHILE INCREASING SEXUAL PLEASURE IN THE MALE (I'm really angry at this belief. I cannot believe that some women have to go through so much pain- during FGM, after FGM, when urinating, during sex, when giving birth, not to mention possible lifelong psychological problems- and risk death just so men would have more sexual pleasure).
In Mauritania, the rights of women are violated. The idea of women and children having rights is still a relatively new concept. I'm inspired by women like Aminata Louli, a former female circumciser, who educates women in her community about their rights, and the fact that FGM is a harmful practice that should not be retained.
I would consider myself as a pretty open-minded and culturally sensitive person. But when it comes to practices in other cultures that are not acceptable in my own, I always have a hard time deciding whether I should accept them for being different and that they're just part of the culture, or judge them. A very good example would be the wearing of veil by Muslim women. While in Western eyes, the wearing of veil is seen by some people as oppressive to women, it is considered as a sign of honor and respect by Muslims (please correct me if I'm wrong). In Chinese culture, parents favor boys over girls for historical and sociological reasons. Even though I grew up in Hong Kong- a considerably modernized and westernized society- I can understand why it was important for my parents to have a boy (after four girls, they finally got a boy) and my dad sometimes pay more attention to my little brother than me: my brother is going to be the only child who carries on the name of my family. I don't think I can ever get rid of the concept of a boy being more important than a girl, until one day when husbands would take the last name of wives and children would to inherit the last name of their mothers.
So how should I decide when a practice is not acceptable? I think El Hassan Ould Moulaye Ely, secretary general of the Saudi Islamic Institute in Nauakchott, makes a very good point when he says, "If a traditional habit is harmful to health, it needs to be [eliminated]. We can preserve good traditions but give up harmful ones." Not only when a traditional habit is harmful to health, when it is harmful to general to anyone in that culture, it should be eliminated. I think this is what DEVELOPMENT should mean: countries that are developing should try to preserve their cultures, while eliminating their harmful practices. FGM hurts, and even kills, women. It should be eliminated everywhere.
By the way, what do you think about my being ingrained with the idea that boys are more important than girls when it comes to carrying on family names? Rather than being a sexist concept, I would say that it is more of a family value. I would consider myself as a feminist and I always try to fight against sexism and for my rights of being a woman. Does having such concept makes me less of a feminist? Does it make me and other Hong Kong people who have the same value less modernized? Less developed?
http://www.wfn.org/2007/07/msg00159.html
This article is about Mauritanian women fighting for erasing the exercise of female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female circumcision. FGM is mainly practiced in Africa and some countries in Asia in the Middle East. It is also increasingly practiced in Europe, North America, and Australia by immigrants. FGM brings many immediate and long-term health and psychological consequences, ranging from severe pain and urination problems to painful sexual intercourse, difficulties with child birth, contraction of HIV and depression.
FGM is performed for different reasons: cultural, religious, sociological, etc. For example, in some cultures, it is performed to maintain chastity and virginity before marriage, SUPPRESS SEXUAL DESIRE IN THE FEMALE WHILE INCREASING SEXUAL PLEASURE IN THE MALE (I'm really angry at this belief. I cannot believe that some women have to go through so much pain- during FGM, after FGM, when urinating, during sex, when giving birth, not to mention possible lifelong psychological problems- and risk death just so men would have more sexual pleasure).
In Mauritania, the rights of women are violated. The idea of women and children having rights is still a relatively new concept. I'm inspired by women like Aminata Louli, a former female circumciser, who educates women in her community about their rights, and the fact that FGM is a harmful practice that should not be retained.
I would consider myself as a pretty open-minded and culturally sensitive person. But when it comes to practices in other cultures that are not acceptable in my own, I always have a hard time deciding whether I should accept them for being different and that they're just part of the culture, or judge them. A very good example would be the wearing of veil by Muslim women. While in Western eyes, the wearing of veil is seen by some people as oppressive to women, it is considered as a sign of honor and respect by Muslims (please correct me if I'm wrong). In Chinese culture, parents favor boys over girls for historical and sociological reasons. Even though I grew up in Hong Kong- a considerably modernized and westernized society- I can understand why it was important for my parents to have a boy (after four girls, they finally got a boy) and my dad sometimes pay more attention to my little brother than me: my brother is going to be the only child who carries on the name of my family. I don't think I can ever get rid of the concept of a boy being more important than a girl, until one day when husbands would take the last name of wives and children would to inherit the last name of their mothers.
So how should I decide when a practice is not acceptable? I think El Hassan Ould Moulaye Ely, secretary general of the Saudi Islamic Institute in Nauakchott, makes a very good point when he says, "If a traditional habit is harmful to health, it needs to be [eliminated]. We can preserve good traditions but give up harmful ones." Not only when a traditional habit is harmful to health, when it is harmful to general to anyone in that culture, it should be eliminated. I think this is what DEVELOPMENT should mean: countries that are developing should try to preserve their cultures, while eliminating their harmful practices. FGM hurts, and even kills, women. It should be eliminated everywhere.
By the way, what do you think about my being ingrained with the idea that boys are more important than girls when it comes to carrying on family names? Rather than being a sexist concept, I would say that it is more of a family value. I would consider myself as a feminist and I always try to fight against sexism and for my rights of being a woman. Does having such concept makes me less of a feminist? Does it make me and other Hong Kong people who have the same value less modernized? Less developed?
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Zimbabwe in Meltdown
Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6912223.stm
The article features emails in which Zimbabweans share their living conditions in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe has been under economic and political crises in the past few years. The country has an annual inflation rate of 3,700%, the highest in the world. Eighty percent of the population is unemployed. Most people lack basic necessities, such as food, electricity, and petrol. People who have jobs are paid little; businesses are forced to close down because of lack of electricity. People start selling their possessions just so they can get some extra money. But even if they have money, they cannot buy what they need because shelves at grocery stores are empty. And when the stores get stocks, there are long lines of people fighting for the products. The stories from Zimbabweans have made me realize even more how lucky I am being in a country when basic necessities are in excess. I also though that it's ironic that while people over there have to wait in long queues for the most basic of things, people here wait in line for days for the latest iPhone or Harry Potter.
I don't know enough about the economic and and political situation of Zimbabwe to critique anyone or make any suggestions. But after a brief research, I've learned that one of the main reasons of the economic crisis is the collapse of the agriculture industry. After President Mugabe came into power, he seized all white-owned farms and redistributed them to the landless black Zimbabweans. The inefficient redistribution of farmlands and droughts led to the sharp fall in production, and hence, famine. That reminds me of our discussion in class about how the colonizers made the colonized dependent on them that when the latter is independent, it has no skills to stand on its own. Undoubtedly, President Mugabe's rule has contributed to the current situation as well (although he's seen as a hero, bringing independence from British rule to the country), but I don't think anyone can deny that it is also the result of colonization. I hope that as this class proceeds and as I learn more about development, I'll have a better idea of what Zimbabwe can do to get out of the crisis.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6912223.stm
The article features emails in which Zimbabweans share their living conditions in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe has been under economic and political crises in the past few years. The country has an annual inflation rate of 3,700%, the highest in the world. Eighty percent of the population is unemployed. Most people lack basic necessities, such as food, electricity, and petrol. People who have jobs are paid little; businesses are forced to close down because of lack of electricity. People start selling their possessions just so they can get some extra money. But even if they have money, they cannot buy what they need because shelves at grocery stores are empty. And when the stores get stocks, there are long lines of people fighting for the products. The stories from Zimbabweans have made me realize even more how lucky I am being in a country when basic necessities are in excess. I also though that it's ironic that while people over there have to wait in long queues for the most basic of things, people here wait in line for days for the latest iPhone or Harry Potter.
I don't know enough about the economic and and political situation of Zimbabwe to critique anyone or make any suggestions. But after a brief research, I've learned that one of the main reasons of the economic crisis is the collapse of the agriculture industry. After President Mugabe came into power, he seized all white-owned farms and redistributed them to the landless black Zimbabweans. The inefficient redistribution of farmlands and droughts led to the sharp fall in production, and hence, famine. That reminds me of our discussion in class about how the colonizers made the colonized dependent on them that when the latter is independent, it has no skills to stand on its own. Undoubtedly, President Mugabe's rule has contributed to the current situation as well (although he's seen as a hero, bringing independence from British rule to the country), but I don't think anyone can deny that it is also the result of colonization. I hope that as this class proceeds and as I learn more about development, I'll have a better idea of what Zimbabwe can do to get out of the crisis.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
