MONEY keeps us happy
enough to look the other way

whilst the private sector 

loots the rich countries

and calls the aftermath poverty.

What explanation have we ever been given for the way people are suffering in the third world? 'It's a poor country'? Because it's not. Africa for example, is one of the richest countries in terms of rescources. Diamonds, gold, copper, oil... it is only viewed as poor from the images we see on our tv screens; the aftermath of looting. This isn't the half of it though; the country has become selfish, corrupt. With people so terrified of being dropped into poverty like the others that they will do whatever it takes not to be. Including hurting anyone who stands in their path. Including the people.

   It is then down to 'us' to repair the destruction foreign owned private sector companies have caused. Though no amount of aid can undo the suffering they have inflicted upon a population.

 

   'Much of the profits from resource exploitation leave the continent entirely in the hands of foreign-owned companies which pay low rates of tax.'

   I personally struggle to get my head around the fact that, if the western world is exploiting places like Africa in such a terrible way, then how can they say its ok and we can believe it? Ok, so they stress that poverty is a terrible thing, but they don't say that what's causing it is a terrible thing. They encourage us to panic whenever oil may be running out. They don't tell us that there are families in Africa who have to walk for miles just to get to school, with jigger infested feet, who don't even know the meaning of a car.

   I know there is a lot more to the exploitation and corruption than I could ever explain, and I know that not all of it will be the truth. But if there is any aspect of truth in it, then something needs to be done to change it.

  

'Few African countries process their own raw materials - rather, the value is added elsewhere, to the benefit of others.'

 

   What if instead of giving to charities, (where half the money could fall into corruption anyway), we just boycotted the materials these private sector companies loot and sell on to us at ridiculous prices?

 

   'Mofya said, the Zambian government and people are not seeing much from the wealth generated as most of the copper mines are in hands of the private sector — including many foreign companies.' 

 

   Telling us that the oil is running out automatically seems to give companies the right to put prices up. But what if the oil is only really running out because they are selling more the earth can produce, and getting into such a state of ecological debt that they have to lie about it? The thing they'll never tell you though is that we don't actually need oil as an energy source. In fact, we don't need to even pay for our energy; since the earth has a natural unlimited amount.

   Who said that just because a resource originates in one country, that it belongs to the people of that country? Why should it belong to and be profitted by the same people? The earth as a whole has enough resources to feed its whole population. That's if we shared it out equally.

   From what I understand, like many foreign owned companies who employ native people; they pay very little wage and then sell on the finished product/material in the western world for a very large profit. Just because it is not on our doorstep doesn't mean that it's not happening, and people need to wake up the the fact that other people are scraping by just so they can have such things as petrol for their car.
   People also need to wake up to the fact that not every 'war' is for the cause they tell you it is for. If a country is rich in resources, chances are foreign armies will go in to claim ownership.

 'There has been violence between Sudan and South Sudan over oil this year, and Malawi and Tanzania have yet to resolve their dispute over who owns the oil and gas in Lake Malawi.'

 

   'Whatever is reported by the mainstream media, the goal of this new war is no other than stripping yet another country of its natural resources by securing the access of international corporations to do it.' 

 

The question we should all be asking is; why does someone have to own it?

- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19926886
- http://climateandcapitalism.com/2008/09/05/africa-why-the-richest-continent-is-also-the-poorest/
- http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-war-on-mali-what-you-should-know/5319093

 

Saint Valentine

 

The story of Saint Valentine is not certain. What is certain however is that it is a day to celebrate love and those you love. It derives from a popular myth, a positive story, however these days it can make those without a partner feel down. It's almost turned into a day more either hating or celebrating being single.

   I disliked the idea that you should be told when you should show that you love someone. However realising that it is in fact the celebration of an ancient myth changes my idea towards it slightly.  It is only consumerism and society today which have changed something beautiful into another day you need to spend money. He/she who spends the most instantly becomes the most romantic and is deemed better than those who forget or don't do anything. It is not a neccessity. We need to remember where it came from, instead of it giving us a reason not to talk to our partner for days if he/she forgets.

   We also need to remember to celebrate love every other day of the year, telling someone you love them and that they are valuable to you spreads a lot of good. We need to recognise those who are doing good for each other rather than those who are doing bad. Why should we be made to feel sad by the bad news we hear every day, and only celebrate love on one named day?

   The myth itself is a lovely idea which connects us to the past. Just because it has now become so commercialised I was ready to dismiss it. I think we need to think more about what the day actually stands for, rather than buying each others love. Expenses don't say love, 'I love you' does.

Consumerism and advertising

have us becoming so lazy

that sooner or later

we won't even have to leave the house.

   Entertainment is one of the biggest examples, we can get that sitting on our £700 sofa. A screen can get our heart racing and give us the thrill as if we are the one in the car chase, and not the man/woman in the movie.

   To get food into the house, we don't even have to go out of the house. We can simply order takeaway, or get supermarket food delivered straight to our door. Straight to our fridge door that is.

   We can socialise sat at a computer or on our mobile phones, and once again, we don't have to leave the house.

   If all of this already hasn't made us ill enough now not to be able to leave the house even if we wanted to, we could always call the doctor to us.

   We need to work for money to purchase the entertainment, the food, the devices on which to socialise, but that's ok, because we can always work from home nowadays.

   We can be educated from home studying, find the answers they want us to know by looking on the internet.

   Take a look around, this is the prison they have quietly created around us.

   Ok, so there's holidays, one reason to leave the house for the better. But even they are planned for you. Advertised so well that it must be what you want. Even if it wasn't what you wanted before you started looking.
 
   Go out there. Don't plan. Be free.

In some cultures,

the elderly are sacred,

a divine source of wisdom,

walking history.

   If all this is true, then why do we insist on putting them in homes, to be cared for by people who are being paid minimum wage, yet in a place for which the elderly are paying over their means to be in? Surely the elderly, our mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, are worth paying more for? It is the care companies who think not. Who think that the most valuable people in our society are worth paying minimum wage for. However the elderly are paying at least £600 a week, so where does it all go? Surely not on the food. A choice for tea between sandwiches or soup, cheese on toast or soup, mashed potato with a fried egg, or soup. And if they don't want that, then a sandwich. They get more choice in prison.
   Residents get one shower/bath a week unless requested otherwise. This could be amended if the ratio of staff to residents was increased. To feel clean is a basic human right. Most of us like to have a shower at least every day, and I know this is a luxury, but who said that the elderly should be any different? Who said that the elderly can't have luxury?
   Because the ratio of staff to carers is so low, there is more stress put onto the staff, and it also means that residents have to wait for longer if they ring their bell. This could mean waiting for half an hour to use the toilet whilst carers are toileting somebody else. For someone with a weak bladder, this is not good. And wetting yourself, or worse, is in no way dignified.

   In child care there are so many reports to write, to protect not only yourself but, more importantly, the child. There is a chart for any change in the child, whether it be in behaviour or a physical change, such as a bruise. The elderly have reports written every morning, evening and night, but in no way as detailed as for a child. A bruise could appear on an old person and no one would know why. Saying that 'they bruise easily' is no excuse. Ok, so old people fall and that is documented. But every bruise needs to be documented, so that if anything is going on, there is proof of it, and the elderly are protected.

   If there were no care homes, there wouldn't be these problems, and there would be less risk of abuse if communities were helping each other. The problem is that people have become too wrapped up in their own lives to see that their parents are the ones who now need them. It is a responsibility you are born with. The responsibility of taking care of your family.

   I once worked for a lady whose mother had developed dementure. She still lived in her own home and the lady paid young people within the community whom she knew and trusted, such as myself, to go in and take care of her mother for a couple of hours a day. Her mother was never alone, she got to stay in her own home and we were paid more than we would have been if we worked in a care home. Her mother got the one to one care she needed. The lady managed to do this with an allowance from the government, as well as herself and her children going in to care for their grandmother.


(In regard to Native Americans,) concerning the aging process, elders are respected for their knowledge and experience. In fact, in traditional families, it becomes their responsibility to pass down their wisdom and learning to the young. All members of a tribe care for the elderly. Death is an accepted fact of natural life, not to be approached with fear.

http://cas.umkc.edu/casww/natamers.htm 

In other words; we should care enough to look after our own elderly. We should take time out of our 'busy lives' to give time to the people who dedicated their lives to giving us ours.

   We should value our elderly enough to learn from them everything they have to teach, which is far more than we could learn in any classroom.

   We should allow them the freedom they deserve. And we should care enough to make this happen.

War

"In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful." - Leo Tolstoy

Who is war really good for except the people who decide to start it? It's like in a game of chess. They send out the pawns whilst protecting the king, when really it is the kings who should be going head to head. They use people and they don't care. They offer you training, a house, travelling, all these things for free. But it comes at a price. a price which could cost you your life. A price which means being away from home, from family, from reality. Missing your baby's first steps, first word, first tooth.

   They tell you we're fighting for democracy, for rights, against terrorists, but isn't war terrorism? All those innocent men, women and children being brutally murdered for the cause. If we are fighting for rights, then we are going the wrong way about it. If a child is killed by a bomb, their father and mother are going to go to war against whoever dropped it. Surely we're just causing more agro? A dispute cannot be solved through arguing. A dispute cannot be solved through war; by one man, one country being more powerful than another. How can they think that what they are doing is something good?

  

   War is killing our families. It is making us angry and the only people it is going to hurt is ourselves.

Remember what it is to be a child.

We spend the rest of our lives trying

to get back there.

- artist

I think most of us have forgotten how fundamentally important it is to be a child. 

   Children are non-judgemental, and they find joy in the little things. This opens up endless possibilities to them, of meeting extraordinary people others would never want to be associated with. This means that together they can do amazing things. 

   Children are unjudged, they can do crazy, stupid things. Say crazy, stupid things, and make people laugh. No one will judge the child who dances like crazy when they feel like it.
   Even to be a teenager, to feel things ten times more than the rest of the world. To experience things with hightened emotion, do you know how valuable that is?

   If children were the ones running this world and making decisions for themselves, I think that in the end they would do a better job than is being done now. A society, a community based on sharing, on laughter and good sleep. Hence the saying 'sleeping like a baby', with the worries of the world non existent.

   When did power and money become more important than peace and love?

The only mystery out there for the children is why grown ups can't see the world the way that they do.



 

Mindless activities numb the brain.

We get excited over things that aren't even real.

   Marriage for example. Love is real. Marriage is a societal construction, followed by a legally binding contract. Once upon a time, if you were married then that was it. They told you that 'legally' you were not to break that contract, no matter what. In some places this is still true.

   Until recently they even defined who could get married. Only after they'd defined what makes us different in this 'equal' society.

   The family is one institution which has always been around, is completely natural and one of the only real institutions out there. Well that's what I believe.
   It's natural for parents to pass on to their children what they already know, but we can learn so much from children who come into this world uninfluenced. It is us who should be learning from them. Children see the world as a good place, a free place. The way the world should be seen.

   Then there's religion, one of the most powerful institutions of all, although not as relevant today as it once was.
   What if religion was just a means of control? Set to influence the thinking and behaviour of the people? Functionalists believe that religious rituals exist to bring a group of people together, which evidently, they do. Rituals, and 'God', also take people into higher realms of experience. They persuade them to open up their spirituality. Because people are spiritual beings, and that's what makes them different from other animals. Not, in fact, their level of power. Somewhere in translation, power became more important, and man became selfish when the holy book told them that 'God' made them in his own image, and so was in fact, just like them.
   If 'God' exists for all animals, all of nature, then why is he in the image of the most powerful, man? And who said that he was? Man. Because we are so self absorbed that we don't even stop to think for one minute that maybe 'God' is more holy ghost than he is Father and Son.
    The image of 'God' seems to be different in different cultures. But then it would be. In the UK we see 'God' as white, Jesus as white, when in fact he was born in Bethlehem, and it is very unlikely that he was white. In Kenya they see 'God' and Jesus as black, just as themselves.

'I believe in God, but not as one thing, not as an old man in the sky. I believe that what people call God is something in all of us. I believe that what Jesus and Mohammed and Buddha and all the rest said was right. It's just that the translations have gone wrong.'
- John Lennon