Re: FW: Breeding, was: Re: FW: The structure of future work...
Steve, Your quote suggests why the problem will never be solved (which will prove the prophet of doom and gloom is right). His web page is below. Look at the mindset. "The more people living in a country, the harder it is to provide proper services and health care to all." While these people are fluttering their hands in dismay at the terrible difficulties facing them, not one hoe hits the ground. As Henry George pointed out, every mouth comes with two hands. The not very secret solution to the problem is to change this potty thinking that we must find ways to feed the multitude. The way to attack the problem of inadequate "proper services and health care" is to make it possible for people to provide them themselves. This would mean fewer international conferences at which people are able to view with alarm, show worry and concern, offer portents of disaster. (While, no doubt, sipping their martinis over a leisurely lunch.) First, find out why the peasants are inefficient producers. Second, change the economic structure so that people can do things for themselves - instead of passing much of their production to the friendly neighborhood rack-renting landlords. This means land-reform of the proper kind - with market pressures pushing the best producers on to the best producing land. It must begin with a land reform that provides sufficient land for a family to live on and expand its production. The Taiwan experiment offered five hectare plots. Depending on the quality of land, this might vary upward. It should not be less. Any help offered should be advice and small devices to make it easier to produce. There should be fewer discussions of the "changing paradigms of population issues" (whatever they are) and more plans to put hoes into the hands of peasants working their own land. Now, we need not do anything practical. After all we are assured by the Oxford or Harvard educated politicians in the Third World that everything possible is being done. Of course the fact that they are landlords, or that they front for the landlords, has little bearing on the fact that they fail to carry out the important reform - letting people escape their problems with their own effort. One major warning! Socialism and Communism and their spin-offs have proven themselves to be hopeless at increasing production. The international conferences to "solve the problems" are loaded who want to "provide proper services". Jay's gloomy predictions will become fact if we continue to try these cute little failed excursions into collective action. Instead of worrying about 3 billion mouths, think of 6 billion hands and how to put them to work. Harry _- Steve wrote: I suggest that this topic is a wee bit more complex than Bill Ward implies. There's extensive research, but a good short essay is available: http://dieoff.org/page56.htm . . . . . . . . and FYI there is a "South-South Initiative" which involves LDCs helping each other in pop. stabil. at their own request. "The 1994 conference addressed the changing paradigms of population issues and the inverse relationship of a nation's state of development to the size of its population. The more people living in a country, the harder it is to provide proper services and health care to all."
Re: FW: Breeding, was: Re: FW: The structure of future work...
Harry, Major assumption here: The not very secret solution to the problem is to change this potty thinking that we must find ways to feed the multitude. The way to attack the problem of inadequate "proper services and health care" is to make it possible for people to provide them themselves. is that there is adequate fertile soil, sufficient moderate rainfall (irrigation ultimately ruins soil), sufficient sustainable energy for warmth cooking, and climate conditions conducive to production of a healthy diet. A small % of the planet fits these requirements. Do you propose that there are 5 such hectares for each of the billions in need?. Steve - David Pimentel, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Marcia Pimentel, Division of Nutritional Sciences Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 DENYING THE FACTS ABOUT THE EFFECT WORLD POPULATION GROWTH HAS ON HUMAN FOOD SUPPLY AND HEALTH IS DANGEROUS Dennis Avery believes the escalating world population is not a problem and that there is no world food problem. He selects his own unsupported data and ignores the data of the world's specialists. For example, he denies the recently reported data of the World Health Organization that indicates that already more than 3 billion people are NOW malnourished. This is the largest number and proportion ever in history! Avery ignores the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations which report that per capita cereal grain production has been declining since 1983. Consider that grains make up 80% to 90% of the world's food. This documented decline is occurring because grain harvests must be divided among more and more people. Why is not all the technology recommended by Avery not preventing this two-decade decline? Adequate cropland, fertilizers, energy, and freshwater are vital resources for food crop production. Yet, in response to the rapid population growth in the world and human use of resources, per capita cropland has declined 20% in the past decade. Per capita fertilizer use has declined 23%, while per capita irrigation declined about 10% during the past decade. During the past 40 years nearly 30% of the world's cropland was abandoned because it was so seriously degraded by wind and water erosion that it was no longer productive. Cropland degradation continues to take place throughout the world and is intensifying, especially in developing countries. Unfortunately the conservation practices that Avery proposes are not practiced to protect our vital cropland? Avery ignores the relationship between malnutrition and other diseases. Malnourished humans are more susceptible to other diseases such as diarrhea and malaria. The World Health Organization reports that many other diseases are increasing rapidly in most regions of the world. Avery misstated the information reported in our publication. We reported that the world population, based on the current growth rate of 1.4% as reported by the United Nations, will double to 12 billion around 2050. Without any data, he states that the number of people will be 8 billion by 2030. To reduce the numbers of humans to 8 billion, is Avery suggesting an increase in number of deaths due to malnourishment and other diseases in the world? Avery chooses to misrepresent our data that suggested an optimum world population based on the earth's resources would be about 2 billion. By an optimum population we mean all people would be able to enjoy a relatively high standard of living. Further, we indicated that this level could be achieved over a period of 100 YEARS, not tomorrow as Avery incorrectly alleges. We acknowledged that achieving this population level over a 100 -YEAR PERIOD will cause economic and social problems. However, these economic and social problems will be minor compared to a world population of 8 to 12 billion miserable people attempting to share the limited earth's resources. We are agricultural and nutritional scientists with a deep concern for humanity now and in the future. There is no question that reducing population numbers over 100 years will infringe on our freedom to reproduce. However, freedom to reproduce infringes on our freedoms from malnourishment, hunger, diseases, pollution, and poverty. In addition, we lose our freedom to enjoy a quality environment and a bountiful nature. The data of the World Health Organization and other world specialists concerning the number of people who are malnourished and diseased confirms that nature already is putting pressure on the quality of human life. Either humans limit their numbers or NATURE WILL. -
Fwd: FW CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT GOVERNANCE AND POLITICS OF SCALE
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 21:48:14 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Jim Stanford [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fwd: CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT GOVERNANCE AND POLITICS OF SCALE Mime-Version: 1.0 Status: U Dear PEF Members; The following conference announcement may be of interest. Subject: CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT GOVERNANCE AND POLITICS OF SCALE (fwd) Governance and the Politics of Scale: Democracy, Capitalism and Power in a Global Age Time: February 4, 2000 9:00 am - 5:30 pm Place: York University, Toronto Senate Chamber 9th Floor, Ross Building The conference will present some of the foremost voices in this debate in North America, particularly from all over Canada. The conference will, perhaps for the first time anywhere in this dense a format, present speakers with interests in areas as diverse as community politics, the urban question, regional development, national economic policy, and international relations to address questions of the scaling of governance under globalization. The conference will interrogate current hegemonic politics in the rescaling of political power at a number of levels. We will pay particular attention to neo-social democratic proposals of various third ways, to the intervention of new social and political actors, to possibilities and openings for radical social critique and resistance, and to what has come to be termed globalization with a human scale. 9:00Registration and coffee 9:15Opening Remarks: Hugh Armstrong, Studies in Political Economy 9: 30 - 11:00 am Governance in a Global World: Reform Agenda - Utopian Dreams? Chair: Rianne Mahon, Carleton University Neil Brenner, New York University Kanishka Goonewardena, University of Toronto Stephen Gill, York University Harriet Friedmann, University of Toronto 11:00-11:15 am Coffee Break 11:15 am - 12:45 pm Sovereignty, Capitalism, Power: Post-National States? Chair: Fred Judson, University of Alberta Leo Panitch, York University Warren Magnusson, University of Victoria Pablo Idahosa, York University Feyzi Baban, Humber College 12:45 pm - 1:45 pm Lunch break 1:45 pm - 3:15 pm Governance and the New Regionalism: Is This the Third Way? Chair: John Shields, Ryerson University Vince Della Sala, Carleton University Ellie Perkins, York University Thomas Hueglin, Wilfried Laurier University t.b.a. 3:15 pm - 3:30 pm Coffee break 3:30 pm - 5 pm An Urban Globe? Chair: Caroline Andrews, University of Ottawa Stefan Kipfer, York University Stephen Dale, Ottawa Katharine Rankin, University of Toronto Roxanna Ng, OISE, Toronto 5:30 pm Conference disperses Governance and the Politics of Scale: Democracy, Capitalism and Power in a Global Age Time: February 4, 2000 9:00 am - 5:30 pm Place: York University, Toronto Senate Chamber 9th Floor, Ross Building Globalization has created new spatial relationships on a variety of scales. Together with the spatiality of global capitalism came an array of new governance institutions and mechanisms, as well as redrawn internal and external boundaries of states and other governance institutions. This is partly a consequence of the changing role of nation states and of systems of nation states. Particularly urbanization and regionalization are among the dynamic material dimensions of globalization. These processes establish distinct complexes of social relationships and of political forms of governance on all socio-spatial scales. This vision defies much of current globalization discourse both of the aggressively boosterist neoliberal Right (which sees only bliss in globalization) and of parts of the traditional defensive Left (which fetishizes globalization beyond any strategic usefulness). It allows us to pose new questions about the incongruence of different levels of market, state and society. It has also presented policy makers with new sets of challenges and opportunities, and has led to new arenas of social struggle. For political economists relationships of spatiality and governance are of central concern as the (national) state has undergone multiple processes of restructuring which begs the general question of political form in a changing economic environment. Especially, what has been termed the rise of civil society and the emergence of a post-Fordist economy, has led to the necessity of reexamining the spatiality of state and politics. Studies in Political Economy examines these new relationships in a conference and theme issue of the journal with a particular interest in questions
Re: FW: Breeding, was: Re: FW: The structure of future work...
Steve, You worry too much. You said: STEVE: "is that there is adequate fertile soil, sufficient moderate rainfall (irrigation ultimately ruins soil), sufficient sustainable energy for warmth cooking, and climate conditions conducive to production of a healthy diet. A small % of the planet fits these requirements. Do you propose that there are 5 such hectares for each of the billions in need?" If there isn't enough land, how do they survive now? The five hectares went to a family. However, everyone won't need five hectares, because everyone doesn't have to produce food. The Taiwanese peasant's five acres per family had an economic groundwork that worked. The paid their Economic Rent to the government, but there were no taxes. Everything you produced was yours. If you produced twice as much, you kept it all. In fact, the farmers produced as many as five crops from the same 5 hectares. Mushrooms in the cellar, fish (imported from Indonesia) in the paddy fields while waiting for the rice to come to harvest. Given the opportunity, human ingenuity will do things nobody previously thought of. For a while, Taiwan had a net export of food - on an island with a population not far short of 1,400 to the square mile. Then, many of the farmers worked the land part-time as well-paying jobs opened up in the city factories. Once food is ensured, other things can be done. However, while the idiots keep counting acres and counting people and worrying themselves sick, things are not standing still. As the Report below says: During the past 40 years nearly 30% of the world's cropland was abandoned because it was so seriously degraded by wind and water erosion that it was no longer productive. Cropland degradation continues to take place throughout the world and is intensifying, especially in developing countries. Unfortunately the conservation practices that Avery proposes are not practiced to protect our vital cropland? Why? Well, here we go again. It said: "Unfortunately the conservation practices . . . . . are not practiced to protect our vital cropland?" What on earth is 'our vital cropland'? I wouldn't spend a moment trying to save "our vital cropland". I would work like hell to save MY cropland. Once I knew the problem, I would no doubt seek help, but I would not lose my cropland if it were possible to save it. My home is there and my family. I've buried a lot of fertilizer there. I've drained it, dug ditches, erected fences. To hell with letting it go. And to hell with the landlord, for whom I wouldn't lift a finger to save his land. Again, when I have 3 acres for my family's sustenance, I have nothing to spare. I am not in a sustaining position. Why did I choose 3 acres? Because that's the kind of distribution seen so often in fake land reforms. It's followed of course by trained economists and untrained politicians sagely commenting on the inability of the peasant to sustain himself and his land. So, we need a land reform that is free market oriented. If someone is misusing his land, economic pressure must work to push him off. Free market pressure should put the best producers on to the most productive sites. This is easily done. Political pressure must not be used (regulations and laws). They are invariably venal and self serving. They cost the farmers and interfere when he should be left alone. Oh, and one other thing. You will probably not often find a place with adequate fertile soil, sufficient moderate rainfall, sufficient sustainable energy for warmth cooking, and climate conditions conducive to production of a healthy diet. So, most of the new farm-owners will have to make do without perfection - and they will just so long as the state leaves them alone. Harry _ Steve wrote: Harry, Major assumption here: The not very secret solution to the problem is to change this potty thinking that we must find ways to feed the multitude. The way to attack the problem of inadequate "proper services and health care" is to make it possible for people to provide them themselves. is that there is adequate fertile soil, sufficient moderate rainfall (irrigation ultimately ruins soil), sufficient sustainable energy for warmth cooking, and climate conditions conducive to production of a healthy diet. A small % of the planet fits these requirements. Do you propose that there are 5 such hectares for each of the billions in need?. Steve - David Pimentel, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Marcia Pimentel, Division of Nutritional Sciences Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 DENYING THE FACTS ABOUT THE EFFECT WORLD POPULATION GROWTH HAS ON HUMAN FOOD SUPPLY AND HEALTH IS DANGEROUS Dennis Avery believes the escalating world population is not a problem and that there is no world food problem. He
Re: FW: Breeding, was: Re: FW: The structure of future work...
Harry, So we should believe you, an economist?, and choose a Georgist philosophy (which was formulated when global pop was around the 2B that many thousands of scientists think is close to optimal) rather than believe the scientific consensus shown below. Harry: If there isn't enough land, how do they survive now? Steve: They ain't! 1/3 are severely malnourished, starving to death, or dying prematurely from various illnesses. (see the Pimentels' essay) The food aid that is produced and transported by fossil fuel is insufficient, unsustainable, and subject to climate risks it could cease anytime. (52 day global grain reserve last I heard from Worldwatch) TOWARD SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: CONCEPTS, METHODS, AND POLICY published by The International Society for Ecological Economics and Island Press, 1994. Phone: 800-828-1302 or 707-983-6432; FAX: 707-983-6164 UNSUSTAINABILITY: A CONSENSUS "In the 20 years (1972-92) between the U.N. Conference on the Environment in Stockholm and the one on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, a scientific consensus has gradually been established that the damage being inflicted by human activities on the natural environment render those activities unsustainable. It has become clear that the activities cannot be projected to continue into the future, either because they will have destroyed the environmental conditions necessary for that continuation, or because their environmental effects will cause massive, unacceptable damage to human health and disruption of human ways of life. "This is not the place to review the evidence that has led to the scientific, consensus, but now perceived seriousness of the problem can be illustrated by a by a number of quotations from the conclusions of reputable bodies that have conducted such a review. Thus the Business Council for Sustainable Development stated bluntly in its report to UNCED: 'We cannot continue in our present methods of using energy, managing forests, farming, protecting plant and animal species, managing urban growth and producing industrial goods' (Schmidheiny 1995, 5). The Brundtland report, which initiated the process that led to UNCED, had formulated its perception of unsustainability in terms of a threat to survival: 'There are thresholds which cannot be crossed without endangering the basic integrity of the system. Today we are close to many of these thresholds; we must be ever mindful of endangering the survival of life on earth' (WCED 1987, 32-3). "The World Resources Institute (WRI), in collaboration with both the Development and Environment programs of the U.N., concludes on the basis of one of the world's most extensive environmental databases that 'The world is not now headed toward a sustainable future, but rather toward a variety of potential human and environmental disasters' (WRI 1992, 2). The World Bank, envisaging a 3.5 times increase in world economic output by 2030, acknowledged that 'if environmental pollution and degradation were to rise in step with such a rise in output, the result would be appalling pollution and environmental pollution and damage.' (World Bank 1992, 9). The Fifth Action Program of the of the European Community acknowledges that 'many current forms of activity are not environmentally sustainable' (CEC 1992a, 4), as indicated by 'a slow but relentless deterioration of the environment of the Community, notwithstanding the measures taken over the last two decades' (CEC 1992b, 3) "In its annual State of the World reports, the Worldwatch Institute has documented current environmental damage, concluding in 1993: 'The environmentally destructive activities of recent decades are now showing up in reduced productivity of croplands, forests, grasslands and fisheries; in the mounting cleanup costs of toxic waste sites; in rising health care costs for cancer, birth defects, allergies, emphysema, asthma and other respiratory diseases; and in the spread of hunger. ' These trends mean 'If we fail to convert our self-destructing economy into one that is environmentally sustainable, future generations will be overwhelmed by environmental degradation and social disintegration' (Brown et al. 1993, 4-5, 21) "Little wonder, therefore, that in 1992 two of the world's most prestigious scientific institutions saw fit to issue a joint statement of warning 'Unrestrained resource consumption for energy production and other uses could lead to catastrophic outcomes for the global environment. Some of the environmental changes may produce irreversible damage to the earth's capacity to sustain life. ... The future of our planet is in the balance.' (RS and NAS 1992, 2, 4)" [p. p.
FW: Rainforest Travel with the Shiwiar
-Original Message- From: Patrick J. Frisco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 3:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Rainforest Travel with the Shiwiar The Shiwiar Indigenous People of the Ecuadorian Amazon are trying to promote ecotourism as an alternative to oil exploitation. This is a small tribe in danger of loosing their land and culture. This is a wonderful oppurtunity to see the flora and fauna of the rainforest with guides who are its protectors! Especially at this time when the economy of Ecuador is in jeopardy: the rainforest is in jeopardy. Ecotourists should leave more than footprints, they should leave the path open for the future! Contact Pascual Kunchicuy [EMAIL PROTECTED] or me Pamela www.members.tripod.com/jurijuri -- To unsubscribe from GREEN-TRAVEL send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with ONLY unsubscribe green-travel in the message body. If this fails, forward the message you receive to the List Owner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] NEVER SEND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS TO THE WHOLE LIST!
Re: hello beautiful! [A (2nd) response from within the list]
Ed Goertzen wrote: X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Envelope-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 05:45:23 -0500 From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brad said: Well, it *is* the "oldest profession" (probably pimping antedates it?), and this mailing list is about the future of *work* What's one big difference between a non-working wife and a prostitute? The duration of the work contract. Ed said: Hey Brad, I looked in vain for a smile following your comment. No smile[y]. I was simply working out some of the logic of capitalism. I received one [at least one -- I haven't finished today's new mail yet!] strongly irate response to my posting. Perhaps I should have made clearer the context: I interpreted that the thread-inaugurating unsolicited email was some kind of sexual solicitation which somebody sent out in hopes of making some money. Perhaps that assumption was false; I certainly did not research the "problem space" in depth. The connection between that assumption and my posting was that our list is about the future of *work*, and here *is* an example of a kind of sexually-oriented work which is part of today's "economic scene", and will likely remain so, or even grow on the near future. So I offered some [admittedly elliptical and oblique] thoughts about "the cash nexus". I had second thoughts in the light of the irate response, of saying that of course not all non-working wives are nothing but long-term contract sexual workers. This is obvious -- just like it's obvious that not all capitalists are always nothing-but extractors of surplus value (else the word "paternalistic" would never have been paired with the word "corporation", e.g.). But I thought better of that, and want to say that I do not believe that all "prostitution" is unalloyedly bad. Obviously our mailing list was intruded upon by unsolicited spam email. But, if that is the case, what is offensive about it is not its nominal subject matter but the fact that it is an intrusion. I would hope that everyone would have been equally exercised over an unsolicited spam from a "respectable" source -- say, someone spamming us to contribute to Oxfam or whatever. I was genuinely surprised that anyone got *very* upset about the intrusive spam email. This is part of the real workings of the Internet. If multinational corporations get their secure ebusiness servers penetrated more than seldom, and thousands of their clients credit cards get posted on the Internet, what should one expect might happen to a plain-text mailing list that probably runs on a low-security server? Obviously, this incident should be reported to the list's server institution, where *hopefully*, there is staff to track down intrusions and try to do something about them (my ISP asks users to send them any spam the user receives -- please include *full headers*, or else there is no hope of tracking the stuff down...). The absence of the smile implies that the monetary accounting system has completed the intrusion into the family and underlies relationships in the nuclear family. Sad. Capitalism is, in a perverse way, what Edmund Husserl called: "an infinite task". The process of monetarization of the Lifeworld cannot, on principle, be completed, for any number of reasons, including that monetarization of any component of the Lifeworld generates new social structures which themselves are not *yet* monetarized. Then there are the aspects of auditing, efficiency and cash flow analysis, etc. which can open-endedly be "refined". Also, there is what one might call the "microscope" angle: Any aspect of the Lifeworld which has been "thoroughly" monetarized can always be broken down into component parts each of which is not yet individually monetarized Etc. --Monetarization without end, Amen. (And, with computers, the day when the "overhead" of all this accountancy overwhelms the ability to process it so that the system collapses under its own weight can indefinitely be postponed.) Perhaps the difference between a couple each contributing 50% to the marriage in order to make one? Again, I failed to contextualize my posting. Certainly I was not talking about, e.g., farmer's wives. But I live in Westchester County New York / Fairfield Connecticut, and I have seen some of the women drop their husbands off at the train station for a long train commute into "the city" -- before the poor guy even *starts* his work day! --, and then they drive off in their BMW (Volvo, etc.) to have a day of fun -- and even sometimes brag about how their husband loves to lavish them with all nice things. (Heck! Lucky the "commuter" whose wife drives him to and picks him up from the train, instead of even making him get there and back on his own steam!) No, not every Westchester wife is this (there are women along with the men waiting on the train platform before 7AM to reenter the daily fray!). Why don't the
Re: FW: Breeding, was: Re: FW: The structure of future work...
Harry Pollard wrote: One major warning! Socialism and Communism and their spin-offs have proven themselves to be hopeless at increasing production. The international conferences to "solve the problems" are loaded who want to "provide proper services". Hello Harry, Long time no read but you are still beating the same horse. Actually the refugees from the former communist countries are so well trained that they are doing just fine once they were allowed to take their training and intellectual capital and run away to the older and more advanced economies. But all is not well here. USA Today pointed out last Wednesday on their front page that America's computer companies are creating their own Berlin walls around their hired and company trained help. Sound familiar? "Mr. Gates tear down that wall!" Like the stores filled with communist fashions on 34th street in NYCity, fashions that were considered junk when the old Soviet Union existed are now high fashion. It's all just politics, hypocrisy and whoever has the media and money. Communism, like Capitalism has huge problems but the problems bear little resemblance to either side's rhetoric. Otherwise American business and Republican Congressman wouldn't be sounding like apparatchiks when it comes to facing the same problems that an ulcerous Berlin was in the 1950s before their bloody wall. Do I think that American businesses would do the same (with guards and all) if they could, you bet. Read how Truman applied the same person and process to the Indian problem as had worked with the Japanese in world war II in Chief Wilma Mankiller's biography. America didn't win the cold war we just spent the East's young nations broke and now are in the process of being locked out by the intellectual capital of their refugees. And then there is their so called "non creative" artists. Anyone who believes that should get a life, that crap will just make them seem foolish before their children who will be taught by the refugees in every school from k-conservatory. My daughter's favorite acting teacher (who is Russian Jewish ) is taking his most proficient students to Russia next year to study Stanislavsky techniques. What most people complain about in both Communism and Capitalism is really culture and convention and is older than both systems. One should sit down and have a read in literature that pre-dates both. Discussions about "interest" for example in Roman Catholic literature of the middle ages. Or have a read in the Nicene and Anti-Nicene Fathers. There is little that is new in the present. Digitalized libraries and decent search engines will be the real revolution of the 21st century. It will decimate the book industry as old rehashed ideas in new form are considered the banal trash that they are. Politicans will be shown to have switched sides many times and ignorance and banality will be shown for what it is, mere commercial entertainment. That will be the real test of Capitalism. What constitutes real change and expansion? We had better learn that the stories of the last 150 years here and 70 years in the Eastern bloc were mostly hype and that a nation filled with good weather and a huge reservoir of natural resources with 200 years of stability against a group of nations that were barely seven decades old coming from below third world status was never a fair contest. That it was a contest at all speaks very highly for these 20th century systems. That they were violent, murderous and lied constantly is not something that I would consider new. The lead pollution that I carry in my bones and the problems experienced by the children on my reservation even today show the hypocrisy of both sides and the foolish resistance of those who are being ignored, and exploited, to demanding recompense. If America doesn't learn to read and be honest about their history, the rest of the world will (as scholars at Oxford are doing about pre-columbian forest technology in America) and show us for the provencial fools that we are turning out to be. REH
