Justice as fairness: we can do better than we are

[SoNotHer]

We all have different paths, and we all have different voices. And if your voice or any other voice wasn't welcome here, then the thread should not be called "Justice as fairness: we can do better than we are."

You have a right to speak, and I appreciate what you have written.

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

I may have fucked up by saying stuff cause I'm not as good with academic wording and I don't have your educations but I'm a Mexican woman living here in America as a non citizen, I have my past history on these issues to and continue to see my kin, people shit on and continue to be over worked under payed and sometimes killed. I'm ok with using my voice even if it's a voice from someone who didn't even finish highschool. Thanks for allowing me to participate.

[Apocalipstic]

Did Snow say Slavery was legal in the US?

If the point is we can do better, then let's.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Aj I'm pretty sure that's not what *I* said, I should have pointed out more clearly that slavery exists, illegal but you sure the hell wouldn't know it from the numbers, the women and kids left behind.. (SuperBowl Sunday a fine example)



If you're idea of this new world is going to work we gotta look at allllll the ugly I think that may be where I went wrong.

*shrugs*

[weatherboi]

I was under the impression She was arguing that it exsists...not that it is legal. I have read no where that She stated it was legal slavery.

Human trafficking is considered a modern day 21st century form of slavery...what is wrong with stating that opinion??

I don't think anybody here is negating that illegal slavery is different from 21st century slavery...what i see is people trying to make light this present days form of slavery.

I will say it seems to me that people do value other peoples pasts and histories in some sort of hierarchy form and fashion. This comes off as valuing one kind of slavery/oppression over the other.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

We all have different paths, and we all have different voices. And if your voice or any other voice wasn't welcome here, then the thread should not be called "Justice as fairness: we can do better than we are."

You have a right to speak, and I appreciate what you have written.

No one has said that anyone can't speak here. Good god. However, I'm not going to just sit here and let people take my statement and then run it three times around the barn so they can, once again, inflate the United States into the most evil nation ever to plague the Earth.

Again, my ancestors came here as *property* not *people*. If one of my ancestors ran away and was caught if they were *lucky* they would be maimed. The law did not protect them. Their children could be sold--not taken from them because of abuse but "I lost a boatload of cash at the poker table, I'll sell a couple of slaves to raise the money". You, Snow, Apoc, are all arguing that this system is still legal in this nation because in another nation women and girls are being kidnapped and sold into slavery.

The argument, again, is NOT about whether it still exists, it is whether it is legal and socially sanctioned and to what degree that is true. Y'all are saying it is based upon the evidence of sexual slavery and sex trafficking. I say it is not legal or socially sanctioned because someone who kidnaps a woman in the United States has to fear being caught by the police and tried and imprisoned if caught. You are saying that kidnappers do not fear this because grabbing young women off the streets in the United States is perfectly legal because it happens. The kidnapper then sells the kidnapped to some other piece of walking scum. You are saying that the person who bought the woman has nothing to fear because holding her against her will is perfectly legal. The pimp then turns the woman out as a sexual slave. You are arguing that, once again, the pimp has nothing to fear either from having the woman as a prostitute or holding her against her will. The basis of this argument? The fact that sexual slavery is happening means that in the United States of America a man who kidnaps, sells, holds against her will and prostitutes a woman has nothing to fear from the law because these actiosn are legal. This is the argument being advanced. I would like someone making this argument to explain upon what evidence they base this belief that slavery is *legal* in the United States of America.

Cheers
Aj

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

No one has said that anyone can't speak here. Good god. However, I'm not going to just sit here and let people take my statement and then run it three times around the barn so they can, once again, inflate the United States into the most evil nation ever to plague the Earth.

Again, my ancestors came here as *property* not *people*. If one of my ancestors ran away and was caught if they were *lucky* they would be maimed. The law did not protect them. Their children could be sold--not taken from them because of abuse but "I lost a boatload of cash at the poker table, I'll sell a couple of slaves to raise the money". You, Snow, Apoc, are all arguing that this system is still legal in this nation because in another nation women and girls are being kidnapped and sold into slavery.

The argument, again, is NOT about whether it still exists, it is whether it is legal and socially sanctioned and to what degree that is true. Y'all are saying it is based upon the evidence of sexual slavery and sex trafficking. I say it is not legal or socially sanctioned because someone who kidnaps a woman in the United States has to fear being caught by the police and tried and imprisoned if caught. You are saying that kidnappers do not fear this because grabbing young women off the streets in the United States is perfectly legal because it happens. The kidnapper then sells the kidnapped to some other piece of walking scum. You are saying that the person who bought the woman has nothing to fear because holding her against her will is perfectly legal. The pimp then turns the woman out as a sexual slave. You are arguing that, once again, the pimp has nothing to fear either from having the woman as a prostitute or holding her against her will. The basis of this argument? The fact that sexual slavery is happening means that in the United States of America a man who kidnaps, sells, holds against her will and prostitutes a woman has nothing to fear from the law because these actiosn are legal. This is the argument being advanced. I would like someone making this argument to explain upon what evidence they base this belief that slavery is *legal* in the United States of America.

Cheers
Aj

Again, I want to be clear.

I am not saying slavery is legal in the US. I am not saying what you think I am saying at all.

I am saying, yes, we can do better.

[ruffryder]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

No one has said that anyone can't speak here. Good god. However, I'm not going to just sit here and let people take my statement and then run it three times around the barn so they can, once again, inflate the United States into the most evil nation ever to plague the Earth.

Again, my ancestors came here as *property* not *people*. If one of my ancestors ran away and was caught if they were *lucky* they would be maimed. The law did not protect them. Their children could be sold--not taken from them because of abuse but "I lost a boatload of cash at the poker table, I'll sell a couple of slaves to raise the money". You, Snow, Apoc, are all arguing that this system is still legal in this nation because in another nation women and girls are being kidnapped and sold into slavery.

The argument, again, is NOT about whether it still exists, it is whether it is legal and socially sanctioned and to what degree that is true. Y'all are saying it is based upon the evidence of sexual slavery and sex trafficking. I say it is not legal or socially sanctioned because someone who kidnaps a woman in the United States has to fear being caught by the police and tried and imprisoned if caught. You are saying that kidnappers do not fear this because grabbing young women off the streets in the United States is perfectly legal because it happens. The kidnapper then sells the kidnapped to some other piece of walking scum. You are saying that the person who bought the woman has nothing to fear because holding her against her will is perfectly legal. The pimp then turns the woman out as a sexual slave. You are arguing that, once again, the pimp has nothing to fear either from having the woman as a prostitute or holding her against her will. The basis of this argument? The fact that sexual slavery is happening means that in the United States of America a man who kidnaps, sells, holds against her will and prostitutes a woman has nothing to fear from the law because these actiosn are legal. This is the argument being advanced. I would like someone making this argument to explain upon what evidence they base this belief that slavery is *legal* in the United States of America.

Cheers
Aj

With all due respect Aj, we have all said slavery is not legal. Those voicing their opinions and talking about slavery are talking about what does exist, "legal" in the past and "illegal" now. We are dissecting and talking about each point you made with your initial post and discussing why or why not we agree and what we think about it now in our civilization and why it will never be peaceful or never be a "perfect society." Does anyone think slavery could ever be legal again in the U.S? because I think it can! I won't get into specifics. Just look at Hitler. It takes someone or a military with his mindset to come in take over and guess what. . yeah. Aj if we sat there with your initial post, which we all basically agree with we wouldn't be having a conversation here. We are all taking certain points and expanding on them. That's all. Is that what we do in this thread or not? Or are you asking us specific questions or just wanting us to agree?

I would like to take the the issue of slavery one step further however and say it is illegal in the U.S. I will not agree that it is illegal however in all countries. When Middle Eastern countries allow thier men to torture, abuse, and kill their wives for whatever reason they may want, that to me is legal slavery.

[Apocalipstic]

All the more reason for a unified North and South America. The war on drugs could be ended.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

All the more reason for a unified North and South America. The war on drugs could be ended.

How would that end the war on drugs? You think the citizens of what is currently the US are going to suddenly not be obsessed with the drug trade? It'll never happen.

Here's what will happen if North and South America become one huge cumbersome impossible to travel from one end to the other because it's just too giant of a land mass to be reasonable as a country country: The US will bowl over the rest of us. They will not compromise. The rest of us will be absorbed into the US life and the US mission and the US whim. It's not like merging is going to make everybody more like Canada. Merging all of North and South America isn't going to get equal marriage rights for all - it'll probably LOSE the rights that we Canadians currently enjoy. You know why? Because the US has the most fire power and the most money. So they'll get whatever they want.

I'm not sure why anybody would wish that on the rest of us. If the US is as awful and obnoxious as everybody says it is (and, you know, there are a lot of things I don't like about the US and I very clearly prefer Canada times a zillion) why would you expect that they would play nice if the countries were to amalgamate? It'll never happen.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by betenoire

I'm not sure why anybody would wish that on the rest of us. If the US is as awful and obnoxious as everybody says it is (and, you know, there are a lot of things I don't like about the US and I very clearly prefer Canada times a zillion) why would you expect that they would play nice if the countries were to amalgamate? It'll never happen.

Exactly.

I still think South America could benefit from some kind alliance. Not necessarily become one country, but a very strong allegiance.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I still think South America could benefit from some kind alliance. Not necessarily become one country, but a very strong allegiance.

Some movement in that direction.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/12/09-5

Out of the Backyard: New Latin American and Caribbean Bloc Defies Washington
by Benjamin Dangl

Rain clouds ringed the lush hillsides and poor neighborhoods cradling Caracas, Venezuela as dozens of Latin American and Caribbean heads of state trickled out of the airport and into motorcades and hotel rooms. They were gathering for the foundational summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), a new regional bloc aimed at self-determination outside the scope of Washington’s power.

Notably absent were the presidents of the US and Canada – they were not invited to participate. "It's the death sentence for the Monroe Doctrine," Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said of the creation of the CELAC, referring to a US policy developed in 1823 that has served as a pretext for Washington's interventions in the region. Indeed, the CELAC has been put forth by many participating presidents as an organization to replace the US-dominated Organization of American States (OAS), empower Latin American and Caribbean unity, and create a more equal and just society on the region’s own terms.

The CELAC meeting comes a time when Washington’s presence in the region is waning. Following the nightmarish decades of the Cold War, in which Washington propped up dictators and waged wars on Latin American nations, a new era has opened up; in the past decade a wave of leftist presidents have taken office on socialist and anti-imperialist platforms.

The creation of the CELAC reflected this new reality, and is one of various recent developments aimed at unifying Latin America and the Caribbean as a progressive alternative to US domination. Other such regional blocs include the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) which has successfully resolved diplomatic crises without pressure from Washington, the Bank of the South, which is aimed at providing alternatives to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and the Bolivarian Alliance of Latin America (ALBA), which was created as an alternative to the Free Trade Area of the Americas, a deal which would have expanded the North American Free Trade Agreement throughout Latin America, but failed due to regional opposition.

The global economic crisis was on many of the leaders’ minds during the CELAC conference. "It seems it's a terminal, structural crisis of capitalism," Bolivian President Evo Morales said in a speech at the gathering. "I feel we're meeting at a good moment to debate ... the great unity of the countries of America, without the United States."

The 33 nations comprising the CELAC make up some 600 million people, and together are the number one food exporter on the planet. The combined GDP of the bloc is around $6 trillion, and in a time of global economic woes, the region now has its lowest poverty rate in 20 years; the growth rate in 2010 was over 6% - more than twice that of the US. These numbers reflect the success of the region’s social programs and anti-poverty initiatives.

In an interview with Telesur, Evo Morales said the space opened by the CELAC provides a great opportunity to expand the commerce of Latin America and the Caribbean in a way that does not depend on the precarious markets of the US and Europe. In this respect he saw a central goal of the CELAC being to “implement politics of solidarity, with complementary instead of competitive commerce to resolve social problems…”

While the US is the leading trading partner for most Latin American and Caribbean countries, China is making enormous inroads as well, becoming the main trade ally of the economic powerhouses of Brazil and Chile. This shift was underlined by the fact that Chinese President Hu Jintao sent a letter of congratulations to the leaders forming the CELAC. The letter, which Chávez read out loud to the summit participants, congratulated the heads of state on creating the CELAC, and promised that Hu would work toward expanding relations with the region’s new organization.

The US, for its part, did not send a word of congratulations. Indeed, Washington’s official take on the CELAC meeting downplayed the new group’s significance and reinforced US commitment to the OAS. Commenting on the CELAC, US Department of State spokesman Mark Toner said, “There [are] many sub-regional organizations in the hemisphere, some of which we belong to. Others, such as this, we don’t. We continue, obviously, to work through the OAS as the preeminent multilateral organization speaking for the hemisphere.”

Many heads of state actually saw the CELAC meeting as the beginning of the end for the OAS in the region. This position, held most passionately by leaders from Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba, was best articulated by Venezuelan President, and host of the CELAC meeting, Hugo Chávez. "As the years pass, CELAC will leave behind the old OAS," Chávez said at the summit. “OAS is far from the spirit of our peoples and integration in Latin America. CELAC is born with a new spirit; it is a platform for people's economic, political and social development, which is very different from OAS.” He later told reporters, “There have been many coup d'états with total support from the OAS, and it won’t be this way with the CELAC.”

However, the presidents involved in the CELAC vary widely in political ideology and foreign policy, and there were differing opinions in regards to relations with the OAS. Some saw the CELAC as something that could work alongside the OAS. As Mexican chancellor Patricia Espinosa said, the OAS and the CELAC are “complementary forces of cooperation and dialogue.”

A test of the CELAC will be how it overcomes such differences and makes concrete steps toward developing regional integration, combating poverty, upholding human rights, protecting the environment and building peace, among other goals. The final agreements of the two day meeting touched upon expanding south to south business and trade deals, combating climate change and building better social programs across the region to impact marginalized communities. In addition, the CELAC participants backed the legalization of coca leaves (widely used as a medicine and for cultural purposes in the Andes), condemned the criminalization of immigrants and migrants, and criticized the US for its embargo against Cuba.

Various presidents at the CELAC spoke of how to approach these dominant issues. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said the CELAC should “monitor and rate” the US anti-drug efforts. As long as the US continues its consumption of drugs, Ortega said, “All the money, regardless of by how much it’s multiplied, and all the blood, no matter how much is spilled” won’t end the drug trade.

Yet there are plenty of contradictions within the CELAC organization itself. The group is for democracy but includes the participation of Porfirio Lobo from Honduras, the president who replaced Manuel Zelaya in unfair elections following a 2009 military coup. The CELAC is for environmental protection, yet its largest participant, Brazil, is promoting an ecologically disastrous agricultural model of soy plantations, GMO crops and poisonous pesticides that are ruining the countryside and displacing small farmers. The group is for fairer trade networks and peace, yet various participating nations have already signed devastating trade deals with the US, and corrupt politicians at high levels of government across the region are deeply tied to the violence and profits of the transnational drug trade.

These are some of the serious challenges posed to Latin American and Caribbean unity and progress, but they do not cancel out the new bloc’s historical and political significance. The creation of the CELAC will likely prove to be a significant step toward the deepening of a struggle for independence and unity in the region, a struggle initiated nearly 200 years ago and largely led by Latin American liberator Simón Bolívar, whose legacy was regularly invoked at the CELAC conference.

In 1829, a year before his death, Bolívar famously said, “The United States appears destined by Providence to plague America with miseries in the name of Freedom.” Yet with the foundation of the CELAC under the clouds of Caracas, the march toward self-determination is still on.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

All the more reason for a unified North and South America. The war on drugs could be ended.

Can you actually declare war on inanimate objects?

And maybe I'm a skeptic but considering all the documented involvement that U.S. agencies have had in drug trafficking from heroin to cocaine it's hard to believe that their hearts are really in winning this war.

[nowandthen]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Can you actually declare war on inanimate objects?

And maybe I'm a skeptic but considering all the documented involvement that U.S. agencies have had in drug trafficking from heroin to cocaine it's hard to believe that their hearts are really in winning this war.

I had a paradigm shift around the term "war on drugs" back in 1995 when I was doing HIV outreach in rural areas out side of Houston Texas. I went to a conference in Austin for work and was in a workshop with a women who was doing outreach work in LA. She was in recovery and self-identified as Latino work in low income and communities of color and gave a great talk. The one thing I took away was here description of "war". She asked us if we knew what happened in a war, we gave different answers. She described it this way, " In a war, people die and we take prisoner". If we look back to the Reagan years, and the "war on drugs until today what have we seen? The government flooded the streets with crack, we had the drug laws that gave more time for rock cocaine vs powder, we got tough on crime with 3 strike laws, and we created the private prison industry.

So language that sound good on the outside actually is a system that has created what Michelle Alexander book, The New Jim Crow exposes which is system of laws that have created a permanent underclass that is in one form or another under the surveillance of the state (Jail, probation, metal institution, work release, etc). So for me the war on poverty is the same thing, war is a devastation not a construction that creates a world without poverty, in fact it recreates the need as a tool of marginalization, blame the victim for not have bootstraps. Ah, the 1% are good

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by nowandthen

I had a paradigm shift around the term "war on drugs" back in 1995 when I was doing HIV outreach in rural areas out side of Houston Texas. I went to a conference in Austin for work and was in a workshop with a women who was doing outreach work in LA. She was in recovery and self-identified as Latino work in low income and communities of color and gave a great talk. The one thing I took away was here description of "war". She asked us if we knew what happened in a war, we gave different answers. She described it this way, " In a war, people die and we take prisoner". If we look back to the Reagan years, and the "war on drugs until today what have we seen? The government flooded the streets with crack, we had the drug laws that gave more time for rock cocaine vs powder, we got tough on crime with 3 strike laws, and we created the private prison industry.

So language that sound good on the outside actually is a system that has created what Michelle Alexander book, The New Jim Crow exposes which is system of laws that have created a permanent underclass that is in one form or another under the surveillance of the state (Jail, probation, metal institution, work release, etc). So for me the war on poverty is the same thing, war is a devastation not a construction that creates a world without poverty, in fact it recreates the need as a tool of marginalization, blame the victim for not have bootstraps. Ah, the 1% are good

I so agree with this.

The word "war" seems to indicate someone has to win and someone has to lose...and who is losing?