Re: POLITICS coffee

[Guest guest]

Renate,

> That brings on the second problem of coffee - if you care about third

> world people, the IMF/World Bank and friends are putting pressure on

> them to create exports to pay off their debt (which the corrupt

> politicians used on themselves and their friends but the country has

> to repay). So instead of people raising food on their land that they

> can eat, they raise export crops like coffee, cocoa, and sugar; then

> depend on the price on the world market when it's ready to sell to

> see if they earn enough cash to be able to eat for a whole year (and

> that's IF they even understand enough about budgeting to make the

> money last for a whole year) So people who would have been healthy

> subsistance farmers are instead growing stuff for export that we

> don't even need instead; and eating white rice, ramen noodles, etc.

> instead.

This is a pretty tragic situation, but how does not buying coffee

help? Buying coffee doesn't cause the structural adjustment programs;

the interenational loans via IMF drive these, and they are instituted

locally by third world governments. Boycotting the coffee when

they've already become dependent on selling it to make a living just

means they won't make a living. Buying fair trade coffee would

probably help more.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> Buying fair trade coffee would

> probably help more.

Yes, exactly.

-

[Guest guest]

Possibly, but buying Fair Trade coffee still doesn't encourage anyone

to go back to growing food. And as long as there is demand for

things there will be economic incentives to get people to supply

them, regardless of whether it is the best use of the land or the

people involved. I've been a little bit involved in sweatshop issues

and the biggest problem is that the companies that use sweatshops

don't care if the working conditions are good, but they want

inspectors to SAY they are good, so the inspectors give plenty of

warning before they come and then don't look too hard (i.e. just

interview the ones the bosses choose). Is this happening to Fair

Trade as well? I'd trust the fair trade brands (ones that started

out just to sell fair trade) a little more than brands like Folgers

who only want the market shares the fair trade on the lable give them.

Then there's the issue of Empire - we've used the CIA to go in and

murder people to secure our right to buy their bananas when they

wanted to either sell to other countries or use the land for

something else. Coffee is worth even more than tropical fruit - lots

of money is made in the coffee trade. Some say it is every bit as

dirty as drugs, diamonds, or arms, calling it " the other black

gold " . When I lived in the Catholic Worker, they used to joke (as

they drank it) and call it " blood of the poor " .

Most (all?) of the countries where the coffee plantations are were

set up as colonies to reap agricultural rewards for the empires that

owned them. People were enslaved, worked to death, and even killed

for that. Even when the countries won their independance, the

foreign investors secured their interests in those plantations, and

continue to meddle in the countries' politics - no wonder so many

corrupt dictators are 'elected' - the foreign investors in their

resources are earning more than the countries' gross national

products - they can afford to funnel enough money into the election

process, supplying PR experts, etc. to get their person elected - and

who would they choose? Why the one who will choose policies that

favor the people who line his pockets over national interests.

Someone who is easy to bribe and has flexible morals. No wonder

those third world countries can never seem to get their acts together

and wind up with one loser of a president after another - it's

foreign manipulation of their democratic process.

And then, if enough of the people manage to see through the PR, smear

campaings, etc to actually elect a good leader, WE label him as a

communist and send in the CIA to get rid of him! Why communist??

Because they want to redirect the profit of their national resources

back to their own country instead of letting all the wealth go

outside the country leaving them poorer and poorer!

Yeah, nobody's perfect and it is addictive, but really the best thing

is to not participate in that. BTW, I don't buy drugs, diamonds,

gold, or arms either - LOL!

>

> Renate,

>

> > That brings on the second problem of coffee - if you care about

third

> > world people, the IMF/World Bank and friends are putting pressure

on

> > them to create exports to pay off their debt (which the corrupt

> > politicians used on themselves and their friends but the country

has

> > to repay). So instead of people raising food on their land that

they

> > can eat, they raise export crops like coffee, cocoa, and sugar;

then

> > depend on the price on the world market when it's ready to sell to

> > see if they earn enough cash to be able to eat for a whole year

(and

> > that's IF they even understand enough about budgeting to make the

> > money last for a whole year) So people who would have been

healthy

> > subsistance farmers are instead growing stuff for export that we

> > don't even need instead; and eating white rice, ramen noodles,

etc.

> > instead.

>

> This is a pretty tragic situation, but how does not buying coffee

> help? Buying coffee doesn't cause the structural adjustment

programs;

> the interenational loans via IMF drive these, and they are

instituted

> locally by third world governments. Boycotting the coffee when

> they've already become dependent on selling it to make a living just

> means they won't make a living. Buying fair trade coffee would

> probably help more.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

Here's a link for more information.

http://www.reapcalgary.com/blog/?p=77

[Guest guest]

Renate,

> Possibly, but buying Fair Trade coffee still doesn't encourage anyone

> to go back to growing food.

I think that misses the point. No one can go back to growing food if

they've converted their land to grow coffee and can't sell any of it.

That would just encourage them to go bankrupt.

> And as long as there is demand for

> things there will be economic incentives to get people to supply

> them, regardless of whether it is the best use of the land or the

> people involved.

But the demand for coffee does not cause structural adjustment

programs, which is what we were talking about. The structural

adjustment programs are instituted by heavily indebted local

governments as conditions for IMF loans. In order to remove the

incentive to institute structural adjustment programs, one must either

erase the third world debt or change IMF policy, which is determined

by its financial contributors, who are part government but in greater

part corporations. So if you want to boycott something, the most

effective boycott would be of the greatest financial contributors to

the IMF, and it would have to be well organized with specific demands.

> I've been a little bit involved in sweatshop issues

> and the biggest problem is that the companies that use sweatshops

> don't care if the working conditions are good, but they want

> inspectors to SAY they are good, so the inspectors give plenty of

> warning before they come and then don't look too hard (i.e. just

> interview the ones the bosses choose). Is this happening to Fair

> Trade as well? I'd trust the fair trade brands (ones that started

> out just to sell fair trade) a little more than brands like Folgers

> who only want the market shares the fair trade on the lable give them.

I don't know whether it is happening, but fair trade coffee at least

has a promise to help the people we are saying we care about, while

boycotting coffee is more likely to hurt them.

> Then there's the issue of Empire - we've used the CIA to go in and

> murder people to secure our right to buy their bananas when they

> wanted to either sell to other countries or use the land for

> something else. Coffee is worth even more than tropical fruit - lots

> of money is made in the coffee trade. Some say it is every bit as

> dirty as drugs, diamonds, or arms, calling it " the other black

> gold " . When I lived in the Catholic Worker, they used to joke (as

> they drank it) and call it " blood of the poor " .

It might be dirty, but what is more important, being clean, or helping

people who need it?

> Most (all?) of the countries where the coffee plantations are were

> set up as colonies to reap agricultural rewards for the empires that

> owned them. People were enslaved, worked to death, and even killed

> for that. Even when the countries won their independance, the

> foreign investors secured their interests in those plantations, and

> continue to meddle in the countries' politics - no wonder so many

> corrupt dictators are 'elected' - the foreign investors in their

> resources are earning more than the countries' gross national

> products - they can afford to funnel enough money into the election

> process, supplying PR experts, etc. to get their person elected - and

> who would they choose? Why the one who will choose policies that

> favor the people who line his pockets over national interests.

> Someone who is easy to bribe and has flexible morals. No wonder

> those third world countries can never seem to get their acts together

> and wind up with one loser of a president after another - it's

> foreign manipulation of their democratic process.

[anip]

It's a pretty horrible process, but refusing to buy international

goods doesn't really change any of it, unless it is done as part of a

well organized and well targeted boycott with specific demands.

Chris

[Guest guest]

So you're not part of the whole " Buy Local " thing, then I guess?

I fail to see how buying Fair Trade coffee helps them. As the world

population grows, as the demand for coffee from newly middle class

people in other countries rises, more and more land will be turned

over to coffee plantations; so not being part of the rising demand

seems to me to be helpful. When I do buy coffee I get it fair trade,

but mostly I think the negatives outweigh the positives (nice flavor

and caffeine high).

But you are right; once land is bought up (or cleared) for large

plantations, it takes almost nothing short of a revolution to

redistribute it to people who could then farm it again. It seems

such a shame to me, though. Subsistance farming may be a lot of work

and risky when there is a drought, etc. but when they leave the farms

to go to the cities to work in factories, what happens to them when

they become pregnant or sick and the factories decide to replace them

with someone else? Who raises the kids when both parents work 7 days

a week, 14 or longer hour days? Don't they become a lost generation

of drug users and petty criminals? Where before, when they were on

the farm, they had parental supervision and grew up (mostly) with

good values and strong community?

I know people who have been to places, from Ecuador to Africa and

they say the problems are tremendous - of unwanted street children;

people dying in the slums because they got sick and lost their

livlihood. In Ecuador, the women would lock their kids in the house

all day while they went to work in the factories. They couldn't take

off if a baby was sick and would have to leave other children to

watch them, sometimes as young as 5 or 7.

Churches in Africa are bribing people not to grow cash crops because

they don't understand budgeting and when they get their money they

spend it all and then their children starve. There's a learning

curve for some of these things, and not being " up " on it can have

truly disasterous consequences. Yet salesmen go from town to town

trying to get them to grow their crops instead of food. Like the

salesmen when my dad was on the farm selling them stilbestrol pellets

for the chickens, tractors, etc.; the loans they took out broke them

and they lost the farm. Not that he minded, on a farm you don't have

the cash to buy the stuff everybody else has, but at the same time,

Americans did a lot better than the people now in the third world are

doing. When they get paid a dollar a day, how do they pay rent, buy

food, etc?

Have you seen the film " The Yes Men " ? They had one spoof where they

were talking about the " new slavery " where you don't have to actually

buy slaves, feed them, house them, or any of that - you just go to

the countries where they come from and build your factory - the

economics of their situations force them to work for you for much

cheaper than our ancestors had to pay to maintain their slaves. (Of

course according to some sources, the coffee plantations actually use

child slaves for picking the coffee beans).

>

> It's a pretty horrible process, but refusing to buy international

> goods doesn't really change any of it, unless it is done as part of

a

> well organized and well targeted boycott with specific demands.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

Renate,

> So you're not part of the whole " Buy Local " thing, then I guess?

I buy lots of things locally, but not coffee because none grows around

here. I generally don't buy computer goods locally because they

aren't produced around here, and so on. Same for sneakers and lots of

other things that aren't produced in my area. I usually buy locally

for certain foods and various other things that are produced locally.

> I fail to see how buying Fair Trade coffee helps them.

Buy supplying them with income, which they can then use to maintain

their home and land and send their kids to school.

> As the world

> population grows, as the demand for coffee from newly middle class

> people in other countries rises, more and more land will be turned

> over to coffee plantations; so not being part of the rising demand

> seems to me to be helpful.

People will only use their land to grow coffee if they decide that is

the best use of it. Originally, you based your argument on

compassion, but now it seems you are basing it on paternalism -- we

should know how to use their land better than they do. The fact is it

is their land and not ours and if they see it fit to retain the land

to grow local goods they will do so and if they believe it improves

their lives to use it to grow export goods they will do so.

The original issue was whether we are contributing to the forced

conversion of local economies into export-based economies driven by

IMF structural adjustment programs. These are injust because it is

not the choice of local people that their governments have become

indebted to US-based corporations and it is not the choice of local

people that the IMF has designed structural adjustment and fiscal

asuterity programs that have forced them into economic niches in which

they had little choice. This is an actual injustice, and is not

directly affected by the international demand for coffee.

> When I do buy coffee I get it fair trade,

> but mostly I think the negatives outweigh the positives (nice flavor

> and caffeine high).

The fair trade increases the premium provided to the local

worker/land-owner. According to testimonials, this has allowed some

of them to put their kids through school when they otherwise would not

be able. I have no idea if that is representative or is a marketing

ploy buy the fair trade coffee distributors. In any case, even the

non-fair trade coffee provides income to people whose only source of

income is international coffee. Boycotting even the regular coffee

hurts them, not the coffee companies, because the coffee companies can

easily absorb fluctuations in income but these people barely scraping

buy who are working the land cannot. And again, since the demand for

coffee has little to do with the root of the problem (i.e. third world

government debt and IMF policies), boycotting the coffee doesn't

address the problem either.

> But you are right; once land is bought up (or cleared) for large

> plantations, it takes almost nothing short of a revolution to

> redistribute it to people who could then farm it again. It seems

> such a shame to me, though. Subsistance farming may be a lot of work

> and risky when there is a drought, etc. but when they leave the farms

> to go to the cities to work in factories, what happens to them when

> they become pregnant or sick and the factories decide to replace them

> with someone else? Who raises the kids when both parents work 7 days

> a week, 14 or longer hour days? Don't they become a lost generation

> of drug users and petty criminals? Where before, when they were on

> the farm, they had parental supervision and grew up (mostly) with

> good values and strong community?

Well of course it destroys the families, and we have plenty of that in

our own country. But boycotting the goods produced in those factories

just leads to more unemployment and more disease. If we want to fight

it on some level, we need to addresst the question of why people left

to work in th cities in the first place. If they did it of free

choice, we can't do anything about it. But if they did it because the

government taxed the hell out of them until they lost their land, or

because some international trade agreement voided their right to

collectively own land (like NAFTA did to the indigneous in Mexico, for

example), then there is something that can be fought over reversing

those policies.

> I know people who have been to places, from Ecuador to Africa and

> they say the problems are tremendous - of unwanted street children;

> people dying in the slums because they got sick and lost their

> livlihood. In Ecuador, the women would lock their kids in the house

> all day while they went to work in the factories. They couldn't take

> off if a baby was sick and would have to leave other children to

> watch them, sometimes as young as 5 or 7.

I suspect we have a bit of that in the US too, though perhaps not as common.

> Churches in Africa are bribing people not to grow cash crops because

> they don't understand budgeting and when they get their money they

> spend it all and then their children starve. There's a learning

> curve for some of these things, and not being " up " on it can have

> truly disasterous consequences.

If the only issue is that they don't understand finances, why don't

the churches just teach them financial management? Is there any

particular reason why the churchmen can comprehend finances and the

population cannot?

[snip]

> Have you seen the film " The Yes Men " ? They had one spoof where they

> were talking about the " new slavery " where you don't have to actually

> buy slaves, feed them, house them, or any of that - you just go to

> the countries where they come from and build your factory - the

> economics of their situations force them to work for you for much

> cheaper than our ancestors had to pay to maintain their slaves. (Of

> course according to some sources, the coffee plantations actually use

> child slaves for picking the coffee beans).

No, I haven't seen the movie, but I think if it's true that they are

forced to work under these conditions, then the questions we need to

ask is what is doing the forcing.

Chris

[Guest guest]

OK, in a nutshell the forcing is happening whenever people put love

of " Mammon " - accumulating wealth - over compassion and piety.

Selling out their God for a refrigerator and store-bought clothes.

The film " Affluenza " shows how when there is a group of people and

some have more than others, the rest want what they feel they are

missing out on. So people will always leave the farm to get money to

buy what they feel they are missing out on, without seeing that it

can be a bad trade. For their own health and for the health of the

community - because then there is no more food grown locally and they

must buy on the world market, where a slight price fluctuation (like

from converting grains to ethanol) can put it right out of their

reach; and they start buying processed (cheap) foods instead of the

healthful ones they used to have. Then they succumb to TB, malaria,

malnutrition, etc.

I'm not saying we should be paternalistic, but there are predatory

sales people out there trying very hard to turn them toward growing

cash crops; sales people who don't care about the outcomes for the

families. Living in a place where mostly you can trust other people,

they can easily fall prey to the first dishonest people they come

across. My dad can go on and on about the salesmen who destroyed the

farms of upstate New York. Sure the farmers were smart, but also

unhappily naiive; and the information wasn't out there for them to be

able to protect themselves.

" Why not just teach them budgeting? " You go from having food stored

for the rest of the year to having money burning a hole in your

pocket - for many it is the first time they ever have that much

money. The salesman said they could now buy things they have come to

want. So they make some mistakes. But the consequences of that

learning curve are devastating! No food and starvation.

I guess in the last few years I've begun to more keenly feel that my

opportunities and luxuries are based on the blood of many that I've

never seen. The more we consume, the more we are consuming them. Is

it inevitable? I guess so since most, having had a taste of wealth

would not willingly give it up again. But here we are in WAP,

expecting (hoping?) and helping people who have had a taste of the

best flavor enhancements the food industry can come up with, the low

effort of Hamburger Helper and fast food, to give it all up and go

back to what was before - simple, real food.

>

>

> > Have you seen the film " The Yes Men " ? They had one spoof where

they

> > were talking about the " new slavery " where you don't have to

actually

> > buy slaves, feed them, house them, or any of that - you just go to

> > the countries where they come from and build your factory - the

> > economics of their situations force them to work for you for much

> > cheaper than our ancestors had to pay to maintain their slaves.

(Of

> > course according to some sources, the coffee plantations actually

use

> > child slaves for picking the coffee beans).

>

> No, I haven't seen the movie, but I think if it's true that they are

> forced to work under these conditions, then the questions we need to

> ask is what is doing the forcing.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

Renate,

> OK, in a nutshell the forcing is happening whenever people put love

> of " Mammon " - accumulating wealth - over compassion and piety.

> Selling out their God for a refrigerator and store-bought clothes.

> The film " Affluenza " shows how when there is a group of people and

> some have more than others, the rest want what they feel they are

> missing out on. So people will always leave the farm to get money to

> buy what they feel they are missing out on, without seeing that it

> can be a bad trade. For their own health and for the health of the

> community - because then there is no more food grown locally and they

> must buy on the world market, where a slight price fluctuation (like

> from converting grains to ethanol) can put it right out of their

> reach; and they start buying processed (cheap) foods instead of the

> healthful ones they used to have. Then they succumb to TB, malaria,

> malnutrition, etc.

Then why did you originally blame the IMF? If the problem is these

people need to keep up with the es, what does the IMF have to do

with it?

> I'm not saying we should be paternalistic, but there are predatory

> sales people out there trying very hard to turn them toward growing

> cash crops; sales people who don't care about the outcomes for the

> families. Living in a place where mostly you can trust other people,

> they can easily fall prey to the first dishonest people they come

> across. My dad can go on and on about the salesmen who destroyed the

> farms of upstate New York. Sure the farmers were smart, but also

> unhappily naiive; and the information wasn't out there for them to be

> able to protect themselves.

Maybe educational efforts are the solution then.

> " Why not just teach them budgeting? " You go from having food stored

> for the rest of the year to having money burning a hole in your

> pocket - for many it is the first time they ever have that much

> money. The salesman said they could now buy things they have come to

> want. So they make some mistakes. But the consequences of that

> learning curve are devastating! No food and starvation.

Naturally they will make mistakes. What I'm asking is why is it that

the churches in these areas have as a strategy to bribe the people

into not growing cash crops instead of teaching them how to manage

cash. If the church leadership believes it is immoral to grow cash

crops, then that is one thing. But if, as you said, they are simply

concerned that the people don't know how to manage the cash, I am

asking why they don't devote the energy they devote into bribery

instead into teaching them cash management.

> I guess in the last few years I've begun to more keenly feel that my

> opportunities and luxuries are based on the blood of many that I've

> never seen. The more we consume, the more we are consuming them. Is

> it inevitable? I guess so since most, having had a taste of wealth

> would not willingly give it up again. But here we are in WAP,

> expecting (hoping?) and helping people who have had a taste of the

> best flavor enhancements the food industry can come up with, the low

> effort of Hamburger Helper and fast food, to give it all up and go

> back to what was before - simple, real food.

Good point.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> Renate,

>

> > OK, in a nutshell the forcing is happening whenever people put

love

> > of " Mammon " - accumulating wealth - over compassion and piety.

> > Selling out their God for a refrigerator and store-bought clothes.

> > The film " Affluenza " shows how when there is a group of people and

> > some have more than others, the rest want what they feel they are

> > missing out on. So people will always leave the farm to get

money to

> > buy what they feel they are missing out on, without seeing that it

> > can be a bad trade. For their own health and for the health of

the

> > community - because then there is no more food grown locally and

they

> > must buy on the world market, where a slight price fluctuation

(like

> > from converting grains to ethanol) can put it right out of their

> > reach; and they start buying processed (cheap) foods instead of

the

> > healthful ones they used to have. Then they succumb to TB,

malaria,

> > malnutrition, etc.

>

> Then why did you originally blame the IMF? If the problem is these

> people need to keep up with the es, what does the IMF have to

do

> with it?

When the policymakers make trade decisions, they can decide in favor

of the farmers or in favor of the marketers for cash crops and

exports. They have a lot to do with how much effort exporters must

put into buying, transporting, and exporting the crops that they buy

from the people who convert from growing food for their families to

growing crops for export. So if the government is in favor or

raising exports, and under pressure to do so, then the salesmen, the

exporters, etc. get carte blanche to do their business and no

protections are put in place for the interests of the farmers, who

otherwise easily fall prey to predatory sales pitches.

>

> > " Why not just teach them budgeting? " You go from having food

stored

> > for the rest of the year to having money burning a hole in your

> > pocket - for many it is the first time they ever have that much

> > money. The salesman said they could now buy things they have

come to

> > want. So they make some mistakes. But the consequences of that

> > learning curve are devastating! No food and starvation.

>

> Naturally they will make mistakes. What I'm asking is why is it

that

> the churches in these areas have as a strategy to bribe the people

> into not growing cash crops instead of teaching them how to manage

> cash. If the church leadership believes it is immoral to grow cash

> crops, then that is one thing. But if, as you said, they are simply

> concerned that the people don't know how to manage the cash, I am

> asking why they don't devote the energy they devote into bribery

> instead into teaching them cash management.

I think a fair amount of it has to do with addictions that develop

once the cash is there. Like on the reservations here. Intellectual

appeals don't hold much sway once the addiction sets in, and

unfortunately in many third world countries there is already a

problem among the men who are no longer able to carry out their

traditional roles and unwilling to take on traditionally female ones,

leaving the men idle to drink and gamble while the women do most of

the labor. There are cultural things there that we don't understand,

not being there, but the people I know who went trusted the churches

there that this was the right decision.

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> These are injust because it is

> not the choice of local people that their governments have become

> indebted to US-based corporations and it is not the choice of local

> people that the IMF has designed structural adjustment and fiscal

> asuterity programs that have forced them into economic niches in which

> they had little choice. This is an actual injustice, and is not

> directly affected by the international demand for coffee.

The only thing I'd add is that it's not just US-based corporations.

-

[Guest guest]

Renate,

> > Then why did you originally blame the IMF? If the problem is these

> > people need to keep up with the es, what does the IMF have to

> do

> > with it?

> When the policymakers make trade decisions, they can decide in favor

> of the farmers or in favor of the marketers for cash crops and

> exports. They have a lot to do with how much effort exporters must

> put into buying, transporting, and exporting the crops that they buy

> from the people who convert from growing food for their families to

> growing crops for export. So if the government is in favor or

> raising exports, and under pressure to do so, then the salesmen, the

> exporters, etc. get carte blanche to do their business and no

> protections are put in place for the interests of the farmers, who

> otherwise easily fall prey to predatory sales pitches.

It sounds from your description that the main problem is that these

folks in the third world are easily duped, and that the IMF isn't

doing much besides making sure the government allows folks to dupe

them.

I'm not sure that's the case. I don't know enough detail about the

IMF's structural adjustment programs, but I did a little Googling and

read most of this article on Uganda:

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/sector/papers/uganstru/index.htm

The IMF structural adjustment program in the 80s destroyed the

economy, then after various revolutions and oppressive regimes an IMF

economic recovery program in the 90s brought them out of it, according

to this account, and the second IMF program was one of the most or the

most successful of all IMF programs, and somewhat the exception to the

rule in this sense.

If you look at the type of things involved in these programs, they are

doing a lot more than allowing salesmen to come in and dupe people.

For example, the programs involve massive devaluation of the local

currency, which it seems to me would encourage exports because

international currencies like the dollar would be so much more

valuable than the local shilling. And of course it would empower

whoever was getting their hands on the dollars to direct all the

countries resources for their own benefit. Not to mention, whoever

they were giving the extra Ugandan shillings to would be similarly

empowered by getting to spend them before the devaluation takes

effect. Moreover, at least in Uganda, the government set the price

that the coffee growers sold their coffee for, so both programs

involved manipulations in the price of coffee by the government.

So it seems to me these programs involve massive manipulation of the

market by the government, which does so in order to acequiesce to

conditions set by the IMF and World Bank for the loans.

Also, I know in Mexico that NAFTA voided the right-to-land clause in

the Mexican constitution, so native groups no longer had the right to

collectively own the land they had traditionally lived off of, so they

went to the city slums not becuase some slick salesmen duped them into

thinking living in a slum is cooler than living off the land, but

because the government essentially kicked them off their land and told

them to go move to the slum. My understanding is that this is what

the Zapatista struggle is primarily about, the right of indigenous

groups to collectively own land in traditional ways as guaranteed by

their constitution.

So, I think there is a lot more going on here than the mere and

supposed naivite of these third world populations.

> I think a fair amount of it has to do with addictions that develop

> once the cash is there. Like on the reservations here.

Which came first in native American groups? Casinos or alcoholism? I

don't know the answer to this, maybe if Wanita is reading she can

chime in.

I kind of suspect that the reason for alcoholism on reservations is

something other than that the Indians are loaded with so much cash and

don't know what to spend it on besides booze. If I remember right, I

think their is alcoholism among the modernized Alaskan natives too,

and they don't have casinos as far as I know.

> Intellectual

> appeals don't hold much sway once the addiction sets in, and

> unfortunately in many third world countries there is already a

> problem among the men who are no longer able to carry out their

> traditional roles and unwilling to take on traditionally female ones,

> leaving the men idle to drink and gamble while the women do most of

> the labor. There are cultural things there that we don't understand,

> not being there, but the people I know who went trusted the churches

> there that this was the right decision.

So coffee growers are, generally, drug addicts?

Chris