Sunday, 28 April 2019

A Commentary on this Week’s World News


In an incident some time ago, dozens of people were killed by one person – not in a war zone, so this was a mass murder (as is the case for all of these incidents).
In another incident – let’s call it the second incident, for this article - some time ago, more than a score people were killed by one person.
In another incident – let’s call it the third incident, for this article - some time ago, dozens of people were killed and hundreds wounded by one person.
In the fourth incident for this article, a mass murder of nine people in a place of religion was committed.
The fifth incident was a mass murder by gun of dozens of members of a minority group.
The sixth incident was another mass murder by gun of dozens of people in a religious place, committed fairly recent, but with an outstanding response.
The seventh incident was another mass murder of people in a religious place  more than 200, and allegedly in response to the sixth incident.
So, going back to the first incident, let me give you a clue: it let to changes to an entire nation’s gun laws. That makes it one of two possibilities, so I’ll add that the main person driving those changes showed, by his actions, that he was biased against people who fit under the “word also means happy” label – yes, that incident is the mass murder at Port Arthur in 1996 [1] , where 35 people were murdered and 23 wounded, which led to John Howard pushing through our revised gun control laws.
It led to quite a bit of debate, debate that is still continuing, on the separate but overlapping topics of violence and weapons, and how controlling one may hinder the application of the other [2] . That last semi-cryptic comment is obviously that weapons were controlled in order to limit the expression of violence, but there was - arguably - limited debate about the underlying problem of violence.
(Notably, however, the foundation started in the name of two of the girls murdered there, the Alannah and Madeline Foundation [3] , supports child victims of violence and runs a national anti-bullying programme.)
In my opinion, that was fairly typical of the shortcomings of John Howard, about whom I have often read comments that he wanted to go back to the “white picket fence” era of the 1950s, which was racism, sexism / misogyny / domestic violence, homophobia / transphobia / bi-invisibility, abuse of intersex kids / etc was endemic, and hushed up – leading to the idyllic little façade of th white picket fences, and the despair, violence and tragedy behind them. The action on gun laws, however, was a memorable and admirable deed, and, in my opinion, should be remembered as such – and maintained.
The second incident was the mass murder of 20 children and seven adults by someone who then committed suicide – the Sandy Hook mass murders, in 2016. From outside the USA, the impression I gained from media reports was that this incident quite rightly caused massive, widespread pain, horror and outrage – across the entire world, not only in the USA . . . but no changes. That’s not, however, quite correct [4] : there were some regulations enacted by President Obama by executive order, and some US states started implementing some restrictions, but nothing like those implemented in Australia in the late 90s.
There was some debate, with the US gun lobby taking its usual pro-gun positions, including that guns make schools safer. I consider that wrong for the following reasons:
Firstly, having more guns in circulation generally makes the occurrence of gun crimes (including thefts) and accidents more likely [5] ;
Secondly, the facts are – despite the lies perpetrated by some in the USA – gun control does reduce gun crimes;
Thirdly, someone simply having a gun does not mean they can shoot someone. This has been a problem for many militaries [6] , where often only around 2% of trained soldiers actually do most of the killing in conflict –the problem was illustrated by a recent attempted murder [7] in my home state using a gun where, despite shooting from a close range, the assailant missed. Of course, simply having a weapon may cause an ordinary criminal to back off, but I doubt that would change the mental state of someone determined to commit a mass shooting - and who possibly plans to die anyway. [8]
(I’m fairly sure I’ve read of innocent people being injured by attempts to use guns for defence, but I can’t find any links on that so may be wrong.)
Perhaps more notably, the debate after this event included the “hypothesised” link between gratuitously violent video games and real world violence [9] . I know from real world, lived experience that words have power – demeaning terms lead to desensitisation, and thus discrimination. That’s part of the genocide sequence [10] , and is well known as a factor with regard to sexism (including the risk of subsequently committing rape). It is absurd, to me, to suggest that some effect does not happen – as an example, there is some (contested, and not as strong or clearcut as many people believe [11] ) evidence animal cruelty is a predictor of other forms of violence [12] . Personally, I have trouble feeling safe around, or trusting, someone who likes gratuitously violent video games – which is not necessarily a problem around people who like guns, such as a work colleague several decades ago who was a collector with an interest in the history and technology of guns (he had an old muzzle loading musket, for instance), and had no hesitation storing his collection in accordance with the new laws after 1996. (I also don’t trust or feel safe around people who use sexist, racist, homophobic or transphobic language.)
In the case of the third incident, which was the mass murder of 58 people and the wounding of 422 in Las Vegas in 2017 [13] , one accessory for weapons, which effectively turned semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons, was banned. For the USA, I consider that to be major progress.
A motive was not determined – did he want to become notorious, as other such criminals have wanted? Did he want to see what killing was like? He had a large collection of weapons – did he “want to try them out” – in a sense far removed from that of the collector friend of mine I mentioned?
We’ll never know.
We do know for the fourth incident, however, which was the mass murder in Charleston, in 2015, of nine African-Americans in a church by a white supremacist who wanted to create a race war [14] .
Following that terrible event, there was discussion of the problems of racism, and the start of move towards stopping use of the Confederate flag, which now has racist overtones. There was also considerable discussion about forgiveness.
As an outsider, it seems to me that the majority of white US residents have been living with both active and legacy racism for so long, and have been so BRAINWASHED by mantras around individual freedom at any price, that they have become inured to anyone trying to point out exactly what it is they’re tolerating.
They want their guns / gratuitously violent video games / sexist, racist or otherwise demeaning language and jokes / etc, and refuse to consider possibly restricting their personal “pleasure” no matter how much harm it causes others.
That problem – refusing to change - occurs elsewhere as well (including my nation), and is the theme of an article I am working on the resistance to allowing human rights.
The fifth incident was the mass murder of 49 people and wounding of 53 others by gun in a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, USA, in 2016 [15] . The murderer had scouted several locations, and allegedly didn’t know that this was a gay night club (really??? Every gay club I’ve been to is obvious!), but some people have stated they see this as a hate crime. I do, and consider what seems to be an apparent reluctance and excuse seeking concerning – rather than logic or objectivity, it indicates unconscious bias.
The sixth incident was the mass murder of 50 people and injuring of 50 others at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, by a religious zealot / white supremacist, which is when the media seemed to finally get on board with recommendations to stop focusing on the perpetrator after such events, and where Jacinda Ardern’s outstanding, love-focused response has set the example for world. I’ve written about this here [16] . There have already been changes to New Zealand’s gun laws, there will probably be other actions in response to current investigations (e.g., on security), there has been considerable action already to prevent access to live-streaming of videos of such events (interesting in terms of the previous discussion on gratuitously violent videos), but, in my opinion, the most outstanding feature of all is a leader [17] who is unafraid of referring to love, and is clearly quite comfortable, sincere and genuine in doing so [18] .
The seventh incident is the mass murder of – at the time I am writing this - 253 people and the injuring of at least 500 in Sri Lanka, in a series of coordinated suicide bombings [19] . Allegedly, this was in response to the Christchurch mass murders: if so, whether intended or not, and despite the response, the Christchurch mass murders have resulted in one step towards a religious war.
Sri Lanka is a nation still trying to recover from a violent civil war that was notorious for human rights abuses: its stability is, in some ways, perhaps still fragile, so those who chose that nation as a target knew what they were doing.
So let’s recap. We have:
a mass murder by gun in 1996 that changed an entire nation’s thinking on guns in the late 90s;
a mass murder by gun of children in 2016 that led to limited changes to gun laws, and some debate over indicators / causes of violence;
a mass murder - and mass wounding of hundreds - by gun in 2017 that led to limited change to one gun accessory;
a racially motivated mass murder by gun in a religious place in 2015 that le to moves to remove use of a racially charged symbol (a flag), and discussions around racism and – religiously motivated - forgiveness;
a homophobic mass murder by gun that has, in my opinion, shown the problems that people have admitting to their prejudices;
a religiously motivated mass murder by gun in 2019 that led to a nation changing gun laws and the world discussing violence and its motivation, and countering that with love; and
a religiously motivated mass murder of hundreds as revenge for the previous attack.
That last attack has threatened the stability and social cohesion of Sri Lanka. Will someone rise to the challenge of overcoming that threat – does Sri Lanka have their version of a Jacinda Ardern, or a Nelson Mandela, or a Mohandas K Gandhi?
But it should also be noted that the response leapt across international borders. Do other trouble places in the world have their version of a Jacinda Ardern, or a Nelson Mandela, or a Mohandas K Gandhi? Can the international community rise above their normal political focuses and, using whatever lessons and techniques and tools are needed from the “Cure Violence” [20] model for preventing the spread of violence, stop the violence?
What will we, the everyday people do? Will we follow the examples of forgiveness and love and do our bit to stop the spread of hate and violence? Will we learn and perhaps be prepared to change, maybe even give something up we like, in order to help humanity at this crucial time?
The world waits with bated breath.

[2] The mass murderer’s motivation may have been a quest for “fame”, spurred by a recent mass murder in the UK (i.e., a “copycat”) – see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)&oldid=894151730#Motivation, and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copycat_crime&oldid=894013413.
[6] As an example of considerations on this issue, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zViyZGmBhvs
[11] The best I could find on this actually dealt with a slightly different theory, but it will do to suggest caution: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/witness/201205/homicidal-triad-predictor-violence-or-urban-myth.
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, 27 April 2019

Life cycles (age), the business world and the problem of “anticipatory compliance”


One of the matters that has been disturbing and of grave concern to me throughout my life is the suborning by the business world of military aggression - or at least the language of military aggression.
(I find the use of military-style language, concepts, and  expectations in civilian [which includes business!] life utterly offensive, and belittling, demeaning and trivialising of genuine matters of life and death.)
In part, this has often reflected the predominance of macho jerks (a small sub-group of males – and some females), but it has also come about in part because of a phenomenon I have struggled to describe – in recent years, I tend to describe it as part of a life cycle of being human, which – to simplify – is along the lines of adoring obedience as a young child, rebelliousness as a teenager, establishing oneself as an “independent” (of family) adult in the 20s, then demonstrating in the 30s (sometimes into the 40s) that one knows and excels at “the rules of society”, then often family or “family of choice” (i.e., friends) in the 40s / 50s, with a few – not enough – moving into more reflective and even spiritual aspects of life in their 60s and onwards.
On that disturbing über-conformity of the 30s, maybe some people lie to themselves that they’re demonstrating their “skill” with the “rules of the game”, or using the rules for their own advantage, when they are in fact being used and actively strengthening the malicious grip that “the rules” have on people – the sadistic power they hold over the lives and wellbeing of individual human beings, a power that includes perpetuating or strengthening sexism (especially in the context of military styled aggressiveness in business, which is anathema to many women and men).
Work on matters such as domestic violence has reduced the language of military-style aggression in the business in the last couple of decades (in previous decades, such reductions have sometimes occurred as a result of campaigns against war), but the problem I’m seeing in many people in their 30s and 40s remains, and is looking for another expression – which is a problem, as it often enables backlashes and social backsliding, including the 80s as a “decade of greed” after the superficial (I use that word as too many of the hypocritical, deceitful and manipulative pseudo-hippies are now in boardrooms) hope of spirituality of the 60s and 70s (but not the neoliberal / über-conservative movements of the last decade or so – that is an entirely different set of problems).
I’ve now come across something else which gives me another perspective on this problem.
I’m reading Timothy  Snyder’s book ”On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century” (pub. Vintage Publishing, 2017, ISBN 978-1847924889 [Amazon] ), which is exactly what the title says: lessons from recent history sowing how to resist tyranny.
The first chapter is titled “Do not obey in advance”, and begins with the following:
“Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.”
Another quote from that chapter which I included here is:
“The anticipatory obedience of Austrians in March 1938 taught the high Nazi leadership what was possible. . . . In 1941, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union, the SS took the initiative to devise the methods of mass killing without orders to do so. They guessed what their superiors wanted and demonstrated what was possible. It was far more than Hitler had thought.”
Quite a sobering thought.
I also consider now, having read that chapter of Mr Snyder’s book, that it is a significant part of the problem I am struggling to analyse and describe.
An example may help to illustrate this: the “expectation” to be on call beyond normal working hours as mobile phones spread and became ubiquitous.
I first came across this “expectation” when someone – slightly older than the age bracket I am writing of – claimed it was accepted as current practice. Now, in actual fact, this was a substantial change to working conditions, akin to adding extra hours without any payment or discussion – and in this nation (including at that time), such changes could only be made by mutual agreement.
Now, there are also issues around fear of losing one’s job if one doesn’t go along with this (which is coercion –or, if you prefer a blunter term, bullying), and questions about customer expectations (which have become extreme and unreasonable, and cause and perpetuate worker abuse in many industries), but the key point I am making here is that the expectation of extended availability was informal, not formal. Someone came up with the idea that it would be required, and thus started behaving as if it was required – which is the anticipatory compliance of the first chapter of Mr Snyder’s book.
That is the sort of behaviour that concerns me in too many people in their 30s and 40s.
(By the way, I mostly still refuse to have extended availability [except for specific circumstances – e.g., genuine, not manufactured deadlines, and genuine emergencies, which do happen from time to time when providing utilities [e.g., pipe bursts, treatment plant odours, etc] and am p****d off with unions, including mine, for having had their own little “anticipatory compliance” on this issue, which has been so incredibly damaging to the life and wellbeing of workers and their families.)
There are a couple of other chapters in Mr Snyder’s book with useful lessons on this troubling behaviour ( Chapters Four {“Take responsibility for the face of the world”] and Five [“Remember professional ethics”], and there may be others when I finish reading the book, but I’ll leave this where it is for now.
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, 24 April 2019

Thoughts on crises: China


The world is currently facing a number of crises with a range of severity, all the way up to the existential crises of climate change.
A number of these are getting attention (not necessarily with an effective outcome), including the climate change crisis, the civil war in Syria, the refugee (they’re not just migrants!) crisis, the massive damage being done by the USA’s 45th President, the risks around North Korea, the growth of Chinese soft power, and so on. Other crises are being discussed, but lack effective action as yet (for instance, underemployment).
There have been a few attempts to highlight other crises (for instance, this: http://news.care.org/article/suffering-in-silence-iii/), and I’d like to add to those by writing a little about some crises I consider either under-acknowledged or ineffectually addressed at the moment.
Those are:
the genocide against the Rohingya;
the humanitarian crisis in Yemen;
the growing military threat nominally associated with China; and
the growing military threat nominally associated with Russia

I was going to put all of these into a single article, but it started getting unwieldy, so I’ll do them one at a time. 
*****

So let’s consider the growing military threats to the world nominally associated with China.
I’ve read quite a bit locally about China’s re-rise – and she used to be quite a world power before the West violently forced opium use and addiction upon her. Not only that, but she has a history of development in many ways – P. C. Chang, China’s (pre-Communist) representative to the group which developed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights often reminded other participants of China’s long history on human rights matters, and, in response to UNESCO’s world-wide survey of matters which are accepted as being a human right, Mary Ann  Glendon, in "A World  Made  New" (Random House, 2002, ISBN 978-0679463108), writes:
The absence of a formal declaration of rights in China, said Confucian philosopher Chung-Shu Lo, did not signify “that the Chinese never claimed human rights or enjoyed the basic rights of man.” He explained
. . . the idea of human rights developed very early in China, and the right of the people to revolt against oppressive rulers was very early established. . . . A great Confucianist, Mencius (372 – 289 BC), strongly maintained that a government should work for the will of the people. He said: “People are of primary importance. The State is of less importance. The sovereign is of least importance.”
Clearly, the right to revolt against oppressors has been exercised a few times in China (and, much as the USA ignored the Philippines success in throwing off the yoke of Spanish imperialism in 1898, overlooked in other nations). In fact, it was quite possibly fairly widespread discontent against the corruption and excesses of the Kuomintang that helped the rise of the Communists in the late 1940s.
Be that as it may, as things stand now:
  • China still holds to her claims to territory in the East and South China Seas, which predates the rise of Communism by several decades;
  • most people want to “feel good”, and that often is interpreted as being part of something bigger than the individual, which is often interpreted as being part of a nation that is –depending on one’s personal inclinations (and, dare I say, spiritual evolution / emotional-intellectual maturity?) – interpreted as a progressive or a powerful nation. In China, the predominant interpretation is of a powerful nation (and, much as the Crusades still have an influence in West Asia, the devastation violently, forcibly and callously imposed by the Opium Wars may well be influencing that desire);
  • China is modernising and expanding her military, particularly her navy;
  • China is also expanding – quite aggressively – her use of soft power (notably, through the Belt and Road Initiative, but also influence on foreign media and expatriates), which is, to some extent, being acknowledged and resisted;
  • China has a history which I read described as “the honey on the knife” – the more you lick the sweet honey, the sooner you get to the knife. I first came across that phrase in the context of Tibet, where China’s behaviour has been genocidal, but it also came to mind recently when China only refrained from calling in her loans to a debt-strapped Pacific Island nation in response to international concern.
As an Australian, do I fear China invading Australia?
No. Militarily, our extremely DRY, hot inland and north-west, and the hot and wet north and north-east, give us some of the advantages Russia has found when she has been invaded, and that is worth a division or three. Furthermore, Japan was being affected by the length of supply lines when invading Papua New Guinea in World War (part) Two, and – despite better transport nowadays – I think that would be an issue for most potential invaders. (I think there are things we could do better rather than rely solely on defence at a distance and buttering up powerful allies with obligations of debt, but that is a matter for another post, and will necessarily include the murky interaction between civil defence and the protection of  non-combatants civilians].)
China’s territorial ambitions are, in my opinion, still focused on Taiwan – which is a tragedy for those people there who want and deserve their independence as Taiwan, not as a receptacle for defeated has-beens. China is serious about that, which I’ve written about here.
A shooting war, however, is probably most likely to occur – in my uneducated opinion – between the USA and China, and that is largely due to the determination of the USA’s 45th President to deliver – or try to do so – on his electoral promises around international trade / US jobs, combined with his interrelationship ineptness and proud unpredictability.
So what can Australia do? Well:
  • Stand firm on matters of principle with China – don’t be aggressive about doing so, but neither be submissive: we have as much a right to hold to our opinions as China does – although we should work out a wording to use in response to China’s contention that less powerful nations shouldn’t have as much say as more powerful nations;
  • Firmly, fairly, but inexorably counter China’s soft power in Australia and our allies / friends  neutral nations – which requires the use of constructive counter stories, just as a constructive counter stories are required against violent extremist propaganda;
  • Stop hooking our defence solely to the USA. Although there are very strong personal, cultural (some of which I sigh about, some of which I appreciate :) ), and military ties between us and the USA, their weird politics means they could become inward focused and leave us in the lurch no matter how much their military or their people want to help us;
  • Continue to build ties and interconnections and communication between individuals and groups in both nations: it won’t make war impossible, but it makes an accidental war through misunderstanding less likely;
  • Change our economic ties. China is going green – the health effects of pollution from coal and other sources is something China has been fighting against for decades (I should know – I helped with water and wastewater treatment plants and studies to address that, mostly back in the 90s), so shift from exporting coal to exporting solar-generated energy (e.g., hydrogen, which I understand can be shipped as denser and safer ammonia gas, then reconverted to hydrogen gas), and move towards more value added, rather than raw products. Our education connections are flourishing: perhaps continue those, but in a way that counters Chinese soft power.
I’ve also read a few predictions that China (and Asia generally) will decline: I think they’re poorly founded (e.g., some are based on trends happening in Western nations, many overlook the work that China has done to, for instance, lift people out of poverty [some of stories colleagues of my age group similar who came from China are harrowing, and all overlook history), and the truth is:
(a) China is a major power now;
(b) China may “move up a few rungs” in terms of power;
(c) China will be here and powerful – to some degree – for some time to come.
So we have to work out how to exist together, whether there is another superpower or not. Ultimately, the people of China have the right to enjoy a good material quantity of life, security in all forms (especially with regards to climate change), and the quality of life that comes from respect for human rights. And therein is, I think, the greater issue than China’s increasing power: how do we make China a better, rather than a lesser, nation?
(Totalitarianism is not the answer, but neither is the USA’s version of capitalism – and military adventurism is not the lasting way to get there.)



Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)