Micro-financing: How it’s Essential to Ending the Oppression of Women in Africa
and to Breaking Free of the Cycle of Poverty.
by Tara Woods
December, 2010
“It is impossible to realize our goals while discriminating against half the human race. As study after study has taught us, there is no tool for development more effective than the empowerment of women.”- Koffi Annan, then UN Secretary-General, 2006. Women are the face of poverty, and micro-financing through organizations like KIVA is essential to ending the oppression of women in Africa, and throughout the world. Foreign aid and charity is not working, and the poverty rate in the majority of African countries keeps increasing despite the millions of dollars being loaned and donated every year. Most North Americans do not know where their money is going, and it is often assumed that African people are responsible for misuse of funds. In this essay, KIVA and other micro-financing organizations as one of the solutions to poverty, the oppression of women and the reason behind the cycles of
poverty, and how foreign aid developed and why it is not working will be explained.
Micro-financing is a relatively new and successful loan system that allows men and women in the Global South to access funds that are loaned by other individuals across the world. “Micro-finance offers poor people access to basic financial services such as loans, savings, money transfer services and micro-insurance. People living in poverty, like everyone else, need a diverse range of financial services to
run their businesses, build assets, smooth consumption, and manage risks.” (2010 CGAP).KIVA partners with micro-financing institutions and facilitates the loan process and distributes funds from the loaner to the borrower. The project is then monitored by the organization to ensure that the borrower is succeeding and using the loan according to the conditions. There is a 98.99% success rate for loan re-payment (Kiva). Loan systems like micro-financing work
because funds are going directly to the individuals who need them, specifically women. There are several reasons why micro-loans are almost always made to women, rather than men. “…Females tend to suffer the most from poverty. Mortality data show that in famines and droughts, it is mostly girls who
die, not boys…another reason for making women and girls the focus of anti-poverty programs has to do with an impolite secret of global poverty: Some of the most wretched suffering is caused not just by low incomes, but also by unwise spending – by men. It is not uncommon to stumble across a mother
mourning a child who has just died of malaria for want of a $5 mosquito bed net and then find the child’s father at a bar, where he spends $5 a week. Several studies suggest that when women gain control over spending, less family money is devoted to instant gratification and more for education and starting small businesses.”( Kristof & WuDunn 192,). Also, funding is being lost in corrupt governments and large-scale aid organizations that spend the majority of donations on
administration/advertising costs. If these organizations spent even half of the funds they raise on people instead of hours of commercials, more children would be eating tonight.
According to the 2006 Microcredit Summit Campaign Report, seven out of ten micro-finance clients are women (Armendairz & Roome 108). Women truly benefit the most from micro-financing because of the opportunities it creates and the doors that open for them. Due to religious, political and cultural
beliefs in the Global South, women are often denied basic human rights, including access to education, which results in cascading problems. This leaves half the population without economic or political rights and without education, thereby undermining half the population in the contribution overall
development. Most importantly, perhaps, is the demographic transition from high fertility to low fertility is delayed, or blocked altogether. Poor households continue to have six or seven children because the woman’s role is seen mainly as child rearing, and her lack of education means that she has
few options in the labour force. In these settings women often lack basic economic security and legal rights; when they are widowed, their social circumstances turn even more dreadful, and they are completely impoverished without hope for improvement. (Sachs 60).
In Africa, it is very difficult for women to access loans, and sadly, if the woman is married, some husbands are unwilling to help sign for a loan if it’s an option, or support their wives in any way. Women are considered second-class citizens and are not given the respect they deserve. They are kept at home to clean the house and take care of their children. They may not be allowed to socialize or even buy groceries, and are sometimes physically abused. “One aspect of changing social mobility requires special note, the change in gender roles. Traditional societies tend to be strongly differentiating in gender roles, with women almost always getting the short end of the deal. In settings where the total fertility rate – the average number of children per woman- is typically at least five, and often much higher, women spend most of their adult lives rearing children. Traditionally homebound, women live lives of back-breaking labour on the farm, endless walking to collect fuel wood and water,and child rearing. With modern economic growth, this dynamic changes, women can avail themselves of urban-based employment…leading then ultimately toward social and political empowerment.”(Sachs 37).
With this newfound empowerment, women will be able to access education and
healthcare, which will only further their abilities to create a sustainable life for themselves. If the woman has or is planning on having children, she will be able to ensure that her children have access to the same resources. It is especially important if the child is a girl, as she is likely to be pulled out of school
instead of her brother if their family is poor. Boys are seen as better investments, and it is the girls who suffer and continue into the cycle of poverty and oppression.
Foreign aid could easily be put on the top 10 list of the deadly plagues of Africa. Millions of dollars are constantly being poured into Africa with a hefty interest rate, and not a single country in the continent is
financially stable enough to start making a scratch into their debt. Foreign aid is a product of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which was conceived in July of 1944 (IMF) as a lending system that started after World War II to manage the global financial system for reconstructing Europe. On June 5th, 1947, at Harvard University, the US Secretary of State, George C. Marshall, outlined a radical proposal by which America would provide a rescue package of up to US$20 billion (over US$100 billion in today’s terms) for a ravaged Europe . As Europe emerged from the devastation of the Second World War with little to sell for hard currency, and experiencing one of the worst winters on record, General Marshall argued for an aggressive financial intervention by the United States. In return, European governments would draw up an economic revival plan. This became known as the Marshall Plan, and it was very successful. This foreign aid had restored a broken infrastructure, brought political stability, restored hope and not only given a future to defeated peoples, to bankrupt nations and to broken lands, but also benefited the donor nation itself, keeping the US economy afloat while the world around it had crumbled. So, if aid worked in Europe, why wouldn’t work it other countries, too? By the end of the 1950’s, aid attention was turned towards Africa, which was ripe for aid due to a largely uneducated population, low-salaried employment, a virtually non-existent tax base, poor access to global markets and derelict infrastructure. Armed with the ideas and experience of the Marshall Plan, richer countries saw Africa as a prime target for aid. The billions started to flow. One of the main, though not necessarily obvious, reasons why Britain, America and France turned their attention toward Africa is control. Africa was undergoing great changes – with Western powers loosening the chains of colonialism, many countries were gaining their independence. Countries such as Ghana in 1957, Kenya in 1963, and Malaw and Zambia in 1964 broke from the colonial fold to become independent states between 1956 and 1966; in all, thirty-one African countries did so. However, their independence was only truly real on paper. Aid became a very shallow form of altruism in which Britain and France could maintain their strategic geopolitical holds. For the US, aid became the tool of another political contest – the Cold War.
Africa became the battle ground for the secret weapon (aid) for turning the world capitalist or communist. It’s impossible to know for sure what the true motivations for granting foreign aid to Africa were, but granted it was. (Moyo 12-14).
This brings up the questions that everyone is asking: Where is the money going? Why hasn’t Africa flourished into an industrial and agricultural super power? Why is the majority of the population in African countries suffering from absolute poverty? The causes of debt, and the reasons why Africa is plummeting further and further into poverty, are extensive. Some of the causes include: the legacy of colonialism — for example, the developing countries’ debt is partly the result of the unjust transfer to them of the debts of the colonizing states, in billions of dollars, at very high interest rates. Odious debt, whereby unjust debt is incurred as rich countries loaned dictators or other corrupt leaders when it was known that the money would be wasted. South Africa, for example shortly after freedom from Apartheid had to pay debts incurred by the apartheid regime. In effect, South Africans are paying for their own oppression. Mismanaged spending and lending by the West in the 1960s and 70s. (Shah). The reasons that both countries and individuals fail to thrive include free trade, lack of technology to meet demand, lack of savings, natural resource decline, adverse productivity shock and population growth. The most common explanation for why countries fail to achieve economic growth often focuses on the faults of poor: poverty is a result of corrupt leadership and retrograde cultures that impede modern development. However, something as complex as a society’s economic system has too many moving parts to presume that only one thing can go wrong. Problems can occur in different parts of the economic machine and can sometimes cascade, bringing the machine to a halt.The key problem for the poorest countries is that poverty itself can be a trap. When poverty is very extreme, the poor do not have the ability- by themselves – to get out of the mess. Here is
why: Consider the kind of poverty caused by a lack of capital per person. Poor rural villages lack trucks, paved roads, power generators, irrigation channels. Human capital is very low, with hungry, disease-ridden and illiterate villagers struggling for survival. Natural capital is depleted: the trees have been cut down and the soil nutrients exhausted. In these conditions the needs is for more capital – physical, human, natural – but that requires more saving. When people are poor, but not utterly destitute, they need their entire income, or more, just to survive. There is
no margin of income above survival that can be invested for the future. This is the main reason why the poorest of the poor are most prone to becoming trapped with low or negative economic growth rates. They are too poor to save for the future, and thereby accumulate the capital per person that could pull them out of their current misery.Even if the poverty trap is the right diagnosis for why the cycle of poverty continues, it still poses the question of why some impoverished countries are trapped and others are not. The answer often lies in the frequently overlooked problems of the physical geography (lack of what Americans and Canadians take for granted: natural resources, with great soils and ample rainfall, immense navigable rivers, and thousands of miles of coastline with dozens of naturalports that provide a wonderful foundation for sea-based trade). The fiscal trap and governance
failures are another reasons why the poverty cycle continues. Even when the private economy is not impoverished, the government may lack the resources to pay for the infrastructure on which economic growth depends. Governments are critical to investing in public goods and services like primary health care, roads, power grids,ports, and the like. Even with billions of dollars of financial aid pouring in, the government may be using that to pay off the interest alone, paying debt carried forward from an earlier decade, or it may be inept or corrupt, which
crushes the prospects in the future. (Sachs 56-60).
The current economic struggle in Africa is complex and driven by many forces: political,economic and cultural, but it is not impossible to change. By impoverishing women and denying them basic human rights, the economy and well-being of Africa will continue to disintegrate. It is only through empowering women through micro-financing and funding access to education and health care that oppression and the cycle of poverty will end. Though micro-financing isn’t the only solution, it is a very important strategy in breaking the cycle.The funds that are loaned through Kiva are being put into the hands of those who need it most: Individuals, specifically women, in the Global South. With this money, women will be able to
create sustainable businesses and incomes for their families, access health care, and educate themselves and their daughters, who, in turn, will go on to better economic opportunities and escape the cycle of poverty. It is time to invest in the other half of the population on our planet because truly, “Women hold up half the sky” – Chinese Proverb.
1. Armendariz ,Beatriz and Roome, Nigel “Gender Empowerment in Microfinance” Microfinance: Emerging Trends and Challenges. Ed. Suresh Sundaresan. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2008. 108-111
2. Consultative Group to Assist the Poor: “What is Microfinance” 2010. Consultative Group to Assist the Poor. November 20th, 2010 www.cgap.org
3. International Monetary Fund “Cooperation and Reconstruction (1944-71)”. International Monetary Fund. December 3rd, 2010 www.imf.org
4. Kiva “Facts and Statistics”, 2010. Kiva. November 20th, 2010. www.kiva.org
5. Kristof, Nicholas D. and WuDunn, Sheryl. Half The Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide. New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 2009. 192
6. Moyo, Dambisa. Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is a Better Way for Africa. Vancouver, D&M Publishers Inc., 2009. 12-14
7. Sachs, Jeffery. The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. New York, Penguin Group, 2005. 36, 56-60
8. Shah, Anup. “The Scale of the Debt Crisis.” Global Issues, 2005. December 6th, 2010. www.globalissues.org
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The Coke That Kills
The Coke That Kills
Coca-Cola produces and bottles their products in over 200 countries around the world, and are one of the leaders is abusing human rights. . The words lies, murder and torture do not seem to fit in to the image of a fuzzy polar bear drinking a Coke, but that is the real face of Coca-Cola.
In Columbia, Coca-Cola has been held responsible for the murder of 9 union leaders who worked in their plants. Unfortunately, when Sinaltrainal, a Columbian beverage union, travelled to Florida and filed allegations for the deaths against Coca-Cola in 2001, the deaths were briefly investigated and immediately dismissed. (www.killercoke.com/www.mhlearningsolutions.com)
In addition to these murders, one hundred and eighty workers (as of 2004) at Columbia Coca-Cola bottling plants have reported to have suffered major human rights violations over the last 15 years. Family members have also experienced threats, abductions, torture, murder, and in several cases, survivors continue to suffer from post-traumatic disorder. (Lesley Gill, Department of Anthropology at American University).
Like most companies, Coca-Cola works hard to keep its employees from uprising and forming unions. Between 1992 and 2002, Six thousand seven hundred plant employees lost their jobs, and now 80% of Coca Cola’s employees are non-union temporary, and make a quarter of what those who are unionized make. Coca Cola has consistently pressured their unionized employees to resign, sometimes offering one-time payments to those who went quietly. For the union workers who did protest, their severance pay came in the form of threats and possibly even torture. In 1994, Jose’ Eleazar Manco, a long-term employee of Coca-Cola, was tortured, murdered and then tossed in a cemetery because he was involved with the union and refused to retire. Then, in 1996, two paramilitaries (a group of citizens who assist the Military force) circled a Coca-Cola plant in Carepa, Columbia, and shot Isidro Gil, a union president who had been trying to negotiate with the company. Two months prior to the shooting, a paramilitary commander had been spotted by workers having a meeting with the plant manager, Ariosto Milan Mosquera. Two hours after the assassination, another union doctorate, Adolfo Cardona, escaped an attempt at his life, which was followed by a break-in of the union office where the paramilitaries looted the office.
So, after numerous murders and public reports of abuse, why are the employees of Coca-Cola still unprotected? It’s easy and sleazy: the Vice-Minister of Social Protection, Luz Estela Arango, is a former lawyer for Coca-Cola Company.
Columbia is not the only victim of Coca-Colas evil empire. In Turkey, workers and family members were subjected to violence by riot police because of an attempt at unionization. Prior to the police brutality incident, 5 employees were fired because of union efforts. Coca Cola had attempted to explain the termination because of “poor work habits”, but each employees record clearly stated a long term positive work report. In 2005, 50 more union employees were dismissed because of their vision of basic human rights.
Indonesia has also been under the fire of the world-wide beverage company. In 2004, 48 workers announced their plan to form a union as a way to insure a healthy and positive work place at Coca-Cola. Shortly after the announcement, the plant started to interrogate the workers, their spouses and their children and other family members. All members were pressured to resign from the union through bribes and threats. In June of 2005, all union employees were fired because the factory had “lost trust and cannot tolerate” the workers” (studentsagainstsweaetshops.org).
Abuse of human rights, sweatshops, slavery and free-trade are nothing new to our capitalist world. We all feel pangs of sympathy for our brothers and sisters in developing countries, but fail to actually do anything to insist upon their basic rights as employees and as HUMANS. In the words of Rage Against The Machine, “what better place than here, what better time than now?” By simply not purchasing Coca-Cola products, you are making a difference. You are setting an example. You are saying to the woman in Columbia that you will not stand for another day of her job being threatened. You are changing the world, one bottle at a time.
www.killercoke.org
www.studentsagainstsweatshops.org
www.mhlearningsolutions.com
Lesley Gill, Department of Anthroplogy, American University
Coca-Cola produces and bottles their products in over 200 countries around the world, and are one of the leaders is abusing human rights. . The words lies, murder and torture do not seem to fit in to the image of a fuzzy polar bear drinking a Coke, but that is the real face of Coca-Cola.
In Columbia, Coca-Cola has been held responsible for the murder of 9 union leaders who worked in their plants. Unfortunately, when Sinaltrainal, a Columbian beverage union, travelled to Florida and filed allegations for the deaths against Coca-Cola in 2001, the deaths were briefly investigated and immediately dismissed. (www.killercoke.com/www.mhlearningsolutions.com)
In addition to these murders, one hundred and eighty workers (as of 2004) at Columbia Coca-Cola bottling plants have reported to have suffered major human rights violations over the last 15 years. Family members have also experienced threats, abductions, torture, murder, and in several cases, survivors continue to suffer from post-traumatic disorder. (Lesley Gill, Department of Anthropology at American University).
Like most companies, Coca-Cola works hard to keep its employees from uprising and forming unions. Between 1992 and 2002, Six thousand seven hundred plant employees lost their jobs, and now 80% of Coca Cola’s employees are non-union temporary, and make a quarter of what those who are unionized make. Coca Cola has consistently pressured their unionized employees to resign, sometimes offering one-time payments to those who went quietly. For the union workers who did protest, their severance pay came in the form of threats and possibly even torture. In 1994, Jose’ Eleazar Manco, a long-term employee of Coca-Cola, was tortured, murdered and then tossed in a cemetery because he was involved with the union and refused to retire. Then, in 1996, two paramilitaries (a group of citizens who assist the Military force) circled a Coca-Cola plant in Carepa, Columbia, and shot Isidro Gil, a union president who had been trying to negotiate with the company. Two months prior to the shooting, a paramilitary commander had been spotted by workers having a meeting with the plant manager, Ariosto Milan Mosquera. Two hours after the assassination, another union doctorate, Adolfo Cardona, escaped an attempt at his life, which was followed by a break-in of the union office where the paramilitaries looted the office.
So, after numerous murders and public reports of abuse, why are the employees of Coca-Cola still unprotected? It’s easy and sleazy: the Vice-Minister of Social Protection, Luz Estela Arango, is a former lawyer for Coca-Cola Company.
Columbia is not the only victim of Coca-Colas evil empire. In Turkey, workers and family members were subjected to violence by riot police because of an attempt at unionization. Prior to the police brutality incident, 5 employees were fired because of union efforts. Coca Cola had attempted to explain the termination because of “poor work habits”, but each employees record clearly stated a long term positive work report. In 2005, 50 more union employees were dismissed because of their vision of basic human rights.
Indonesia has also been under the fire of the world-wide beverage company. In 2004, 48 workers announced their plan to form a union as a way to insure a healthy and positive work place at Coca-Cola. Shortly after the announcement, the plant started to interrogate the workers, their spouses and their children and other family members. All members were pressured to resign from the union through bribes and threats. In June of 2005, all union employees were fired because the factory had “lost trust and cannot tolerate” the workers” (studentsagainstsweaetshops.org).
Abuse of human rights, sweatshops, slavery and free-trade are nothing new to our capitalist world. We all feel pangs of sympathy for our brothers and sisters in developing countries, but fail to actually do anything to insist upon their basic rights as employees and as HUMANS. In the words of Rage Against The Machine, “what better place than here, what better time than now?” By simply not purchasing Coca-Cola products, you are making a difference. You are setting an example. You are saying to the woman in Columbia that you will not stand for another day of her job being threatened. You are changing the world, one bottle at a time.
www.killercoke.org
www.studentsagainstsweatshops.org
www.mhlearningsolutions.com
Lesley Gill, Department of Anthroplogy, American University
The True Cost of The Olympics
The True Costs of the Olympics
Since 1896, the modern Olympics have brought countries around the world together in celebrating athleticism, community, peace and friendship. No other event has ever been the subject of such publicity and celebration.
Unfortunately, what is not exposed in our media is the financial, and most importantly, the human costs of the Olympics.
In 2004, the operational costs of the 2010 Olympic Winter games were estimated to $1.354 billion dollars. As of mid-2009, the estimate was up to $1.7 billion, all coming from non-government sources. BC taxpayers are guaranteed to be picking up a $580 million bill to construct or renovate venues throughout Vancouver and Whistler, and we can also look forward to handing over our spare change for the $40 million budget that failed to receive funding from private sponsorship and advertising.
On Cypress Mountain Ski Resort, which will be hosting the freestyle (aerials, moguls, ski cross and snowboarding events), $16.6 million dollars is being spent on upgrading alone. $1 billion has been budgeted for security, which is five times the original estimate of $200 million.
To ease the minds of our extreme-spending politicians, they’ve been offered their own thrones at the 2010 event. In a recent article in the Columbia Valley News, MLA Norm Macdonald called out corporations and organizations for their ridiculous spending on seats in order to charm members of the government. “Publicly owned corporations like BC Hydro and ICBC have spent $1.5 million on Olympic tickets. And the government’s own Olympic Ticketing Strategy spent $900,000 to buy tickets so that government MLA’s and cabinet ministers can attend prime events in the best seats.”
If you’re not cringing from the sudden rise in your taxes, perhaps the human cost will make you rethink your stance on the Olympics.
When Vancouver bid for the 2010 Winter Games, federal, provincial and municipal governments pledged to protect the city's rental housing and ensure no one would be left homeless because of the Games, and the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee has guaranteed to “Protect rental-housing stock to ensure no residents are displaced, evicted, made homeless or face unreasonable increases in rent as a result of the Games.” (CTV NEWS) However, the exact opposite is happening. Many low-income Vancouver residents depend on single occupancy hotel rooms for their home, but since the planning for the games has started, the value of these hotels has risen, thus increasing rent. On a $350 monthly shelter allowance from Welfare, the tenants have been evicted, and the hotels are now being demolished to make room for condos. (www.gamesmonitor.uk.org). As of February of 2009, the agreement between the province and the city of Vancouver to build transition low-income housing in 12 areas of the city had not even started to materialize.
Considering the number of homeless people in Vancouver will exceed the 5,000 athletes who will be competing in the 2010 games, it’s shocking that the city of Vancouver’s only response to the homeless crisis is their ‘Project Civil City’, which focuses on cracking down on open drug use and aggressive panhandling by increased law enforcement. Don’t be fooled, this is not for the good of the community. This project was created to give the Olympics the illusion that Vancouver doesn’t have a homeless problem. A similar program was created in Sydney during the 2000 Games and in Atlanta in 1996 where homeless citizens were removed from the scene to create a facade of a ‘clean’ city to Olympic visitors. These ‘solutions’ are nothing but temporary band-aids to urban poverty.
BC’s First Nations are also fighting the costs of the 2010 Games. The main focus of protest is ‘No Olympics on Stolen Native Land’, which refers to the fact that in BC, “virtually no treaties were made in the process of colonization & settlement. Treaties were required under British, and later Canadian, law prior to any trade or settlement (i.e., the 1763 Royal Proclamation). Although today the government seeks 'modern-day treaties' with its Indian Act band councils, the fact is in 'BC' the land is clearly occupied by an illegal colonial system.” (www.no2010.com). While the highest rates of depression, suicide, poverty, disease, police violence and unemployment effect Indigenous peoples in BC, our government insists on spending $3 billion dollars hosting a corporate event on land that does not even belong to us in the first place. “The riches grabbed from First Nations traditional lands over the last 15 0 years have allowed the Province to reach the stage where it can mount a $3-billion international sporting event. There is no justification in telling our First Nations that there is no money left over to provide what amounts each year to 1,000th of the cost of those Games, to address the dire conditions that they are experiencing.” – Chief Thomas of First Nations Forestry Council, as quoted in Columbia Valley News
This new awareness brings on the age old questions: How did we get here? How has our world come to this time where corporations have more power than our people? How, when we have a Democratic Government, are the voices of thousands of citizens not represented by our leaders? The Olympics, at one time, was an event that brought together the entire world in the name of sports, community and pride. Now, it’s a corporation that sells us patriotism; instead of fighting with guns, we fight with gold medals and shake hands at the end. Through advertisements, clothing and even our food, the master minds behind the Olympics are selling us a sense of community and personal pride, as if we ourselves are the athletes. How much are YOU willing to pay?
Since 1896, the modern Olympics have brought countries around the world together in celebrating athleticism, community, peace and friendship. No other event has ever been the subject of such publicity and celebration.
Unfortunately, what is not exposed in our media is the financial, and most importantly, the human costs of the Olympics.
In 2004, the operational costs of the 2010 Olympic Winter games were estimated to $1.354 billion dollars. As of mid-2009, the estimate was up to $1.7 billion, all coming from non-government sources. BC taxpayers are guaranteed to be picking up a $580 million bill to construct or renovate venues throughout Vancouver and Whistler, and we can also look forward to handing over our spare change for the $40 million budget that failed to receive funding from private sponsorship and advertising.
On Cypress Mountain Ski Resort, which will be hosting the freestyle (aerials, moguls, ski cross and snowboarding events), $16.6 million dollars is being spent on upgrading alone. $1 billion has been budgeted for security, which is five times the original estimate of $200 million.
To ease the minds of our extreme-spending politicians, they’ve been offered their own thrones at the 2010 event. In a recent article in the Columbia Valley News, MLA Norm Macdonald called out corporations and organizations for their ridiculous spending on seats in order to charm members of the government. “Publicly owned corporations like BC Hydro and ICBC have spent $1.5 million on Olympic tickets. And the government’s own Olympic Ticketing Strategy spent $900,000 to buy tickets so that government MLA’s and cabinet ministers can attend prime events in the best seats.”
If you’re not cringing from the sudden rise in your taxes, perhaps the human cost will make you rethink your stance on the Olympics.
When Vancouver bid for the 2010 Winter Games, federal, provincial and municipal governments pledged to protect the city's rental housing and ensure no one would be left homeless because of the Games, and the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee has guaranteed to “Protect rental-housing stock to ensure no residents are displaced, evicted, made homeless or face unreasonable increases in rent as a result of the Games.” (CTV NEWS) However, the exact opposite is happening. Many low-income Vancouver residents depend on single occupancy hotel rooms for their home, but since the planning for the games has started, the value of these hotels has risen, thus increasing rent. On a $350 monthly shelter allowance from Welfare, the tenants have been evicted, and the hotels are now being demolished to make room for condos. (www.gamesmonitor.uk.org). As of February of 2009, the agreement between the province and the city of Vancouver to build transition low-income housing in 12 areas of the city had not even started to materialize.
Considering the number of homeless people in Vancouver will exceed the 5,000 athletes who will be competing in the 2010 games, it’s shocking that the city of Vancouver’s only response to the homeless crisis is their ‘Project Civil City’, which focuses on cracking down on open drug use and aggressive panhandling by increased law enforcement. Don’t be fooled, this is not for the good of the community. This project was created to give the Olympics the illusion that Vancouver doesn’t have a homeless problem. A similar program was created in Sydney during the 2000 Games and in Atlanta in 1996 where homeless citizens were removed from the scene to create a facade of a ‘clean’ city to Olympic visitors. These ‘solutions’ are nothing but temporary band-aids to urban poverty.
BC’s First Nations are also fighting the costs of the 2010 Games. The main focus of protest is ‘No Olympics on Stolen Native Land’, which refers to the fact that in BC, “virtually no treaties were made in the process of colonization & settlement. Treaties were required under British, and later Canadian, law prior to any trade or settlement (i.e., the 1763 Royal Proclamation). Although today the government seeks 'modern-day treaties' with its Indian Act band councils, the fact is in 'BC' the land is clearly occupied by an illegal colonial system.” (www.no2010.com). While the highest rates of depression, suicide, poverty, disease, police violence and unemployment effect Indigenous peoples in BC, our government insists on spending $3 billion dollars hosting a corporate event on land that does not even belong to us in the first place. “The riches grabbed from First Nations traditional lands over the last 15 0 years have allowed the Province to reach the stage where it can mount a $3-billion international sporting event. There is no justification in telling our First Nations that there is no money left over to provide what amounts each year to 1,000th of the cost of those Games, to address the dire conditions that they are experiencing.” – Chief Thomas of First Nations Forestry Council, as quoted in Columbia Valley News
This new awareness brings on the age old questions: How did we get here? How has our world come to this time where corporations have more power than our people? How, when we have a Democratic Government, are the voices of thousands of citizens not represented by our leaders? The Olympics, at one time, was an event that brought together the entire world in the name of sports, community and pride. Now, it’s a corporation that sells us patriotism; instead of fighting with guns, we fight with gold medals and shake hands at the end. Through advertisements, clothing and even our food, the master minds behind the Olympics are selling us a sense of community and personal pride, as if we ourselves are the athletes. How much are YOU willing to pay?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)