Monday, October 22, 2007

Question For You

Is it to the economic advantage of the "haves" to repress the "have nots?" Please include reasons for your answer.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

The wealth is already transferred to the uppermost decile...1%-10%...

This is a false assumptive statement...

concrete katie said...

"We have the capacity to feed everybody on our planet. We have the capacity to ensure that everybody has clean water. We have the capacity to ensure that everybody has affordable health care. We have the capacity to ensure that every child get the inoculations that they ought to have as children. We can prevent many of the diseases to which our children in the poorer part of the world succumb. For goodness' sake. Why don't we wake up to the fact that you can't have an apartheid security. YOU CAN'T HAVE AN APARTHEID PROSPERITY. (emphasis especially for Denis!) If you are going to have security, it's going to be security for all. If you are going to have prosperity, it is going to be prosperity for all. If you want to be free, you can't have a quarantine freedom. It's going to be a freedom for all. AND IF YOU WANT TO BE HUMAN, WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE HUMAN IN ISOLATION. IT WILL BE THAT WE ARE HUMAN TOGETHER."
---Desmond Tutu, interview in July 07 Vanity Fair.
Ubuntu, Denis!

Denis Navratil said...

Thanks for your contribution ck. I would agree with much of what Tutu has stated, but it is entirely lacking in specifics in how to achieve the admirable objectives set forth. I wonder who the "we" are in his statement and what methods might be "used" to motivate the "we."

concrete katie said...

Hi back Denis.

The interview I quoted from (which I highly recommend) is an effort by Tutu to explain the concept of UBUNTU. There is no word in english that comes close, according to Tutu. The concept OF UBUNTU springs out of our human interconnectiveness, "you can't be human in isolation. You are human only in relationships." Then Tutu elaborates with this wonderful response:

"WE are interconnected. I'm sure you know the movie The Defiant Ones. It's a movie in which there were two convicts. One was white and one was black. They escaped, but they are still manacled to one another. They fall down a ditch, and the one tries to slither up out of the ditch and almost makes it. But when he gets to the top, he realizes he actually can't get out, because he's still manacled to his mate down there, and he slithers back down to the bottom and realizes that THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN MAKE IT IS TOGETHER. (emphasis added) Up, up, up and out together. So we say that "I need you to be all of who you are in order for me to be all that I am." BECAUSE NO HUMAN BEING IS TOTALLY SELF-SUFFICIENT. IN FACT, A SELF-SUFFICIENT HUMAN BEING IS SUBHUMAN.

Denis Navratil said...

People working together. I have no problem with that, none whatsoever. I begin to get skeptical when that cooperation is forced (yes, forced cooperation is an oxymoron) via government. I am wondering somethin ck. Have I given the impression that I am opposed to people working together?

concrete katie said...

Building bridges may not be what your strength is.

Denis Navratil said...

What bridges have you built CK?

concrete katie said...

I am not a bridge builder. I never suggested I was a bridge builder.