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.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
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)
