Post by Helmut83 on Aug 26, 2019 6:21:34 GMT
BIuebird: I had never heard about the case you exposed about the North Dakota pipeline, it's terrible. However that sort of stuff is nothing new to me, as that kind of shit -and far worse- happens in my country too. For example, the way the Quom aborigins are being treated like animals in the province of Formosa, in my country, has been going on since decades ago.
Now, what annoys me is the press hiding those things when the governments wave certain flags and inventing others when the government waves others. No one reports the way in which the Kirchners' sidekicks have treated the native tribes. If you don't go there and find it out for yourself, or search in the internet for the work of some lonely, heroic independent reporter, you don't even get to know anything about it. I have personally talked to natives who told me how the only dirt road that communicated their community with the rest of world was being destroyed by machines from a company that belonged to a friend of the governor, not letting them get the most basic of supplies like medicine, nor trade of any kind. People from another group in another province have told me how another firm who was in bed with the governor (another Kirchner supporter) was dumping wastes upstream in their source of water. I don't want to bore you with places and names that will mean nothing to you, but I can give them to you if you want to make sure I'm not rambling.
The policies of Evo Morales towards indigenous people in Bolivia have also been abusive, but no one reports anything either. However, Bolsonaro is not one to get in bed with the press or pay them off, so he gets accused daily of the most ridiculous bullshit. This time it was that he is happy to let others destroy the Amazonia and the natives living within it. I want to see concrete proof of his government supporting people who burn the Amazonas and destroy the native communities who live in it. Until I don't see that, I won't believe it because I know where those accusations are coming from.
In the same way, it has been shouted to the four winds that during the first six months of Bolsonaro's government, 74.155 wood fires have been reported (a number obviously too high, the desired number would be 0). However, it has been conveniently omitted that during the first six months of the previous president Lula da Silva the fires reported were 127.584, and during his whole government the Amazonas lost a hell of a lot of territory. Now Lula acts as if nothing of this had happened during his years and accuses Bolsonaro of being responsible for the fires, how cynical can you be? The fire stats were the highest during the years he governed, just look at this:
But Lula was socialist, so be it for payoff or by political sympathy, nothing about the destruction of the Amazonas during his government was blamed on him by the press and those stats were silenced.
Of course you are not supposed to know any of this. Brazil is a neighbour of Argentina and a giant in the region, so their politics are being followed closely here, but for you guys it makes less sense to follow closely a far away region which the news don't report much about and schools in the US don't seem to educate much on geography other than that of the US itself, so there's only so much that the people can do to filter information from this area. I don't trust any of the British or American main media, starting by The Guardian, the BBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times and CNN. They are hugely biased liars constantly praising or attacking according to their own convenciency, and when they are bringing news about countries which they are aware most of their audience don't know much about, it's picnic time for them. Again, I'd like the Guardian to come up with solid proof instead of lightly and irresponsibly alleging that "ministers have made clear that their sympathies are with loggers rather than the indigenous groups who live in the forest".
I now get better what your take about racism was about. I understand racism more as believing a race is superior to others. The sort of thing we are talking about here, I see it more as abuse of power in the knowledge that peoples who are less instructed in the law and how to defend their rights will have a hard time defending themselves, which is to be exected and understandable due to them living in relative isolation to the western ways that rule our countries. In order to achieve their objectives those people who have power step over the indigenous people who happen to be there interfering with their plans and who will probably be able to do nothing about it. Is that racism? I don't know, I wouldn't dare call it that. I think they would do the same regardless of the race as long as the people standing in their way are defenseless enough. As I see it, they are abusive people, not necessarily racists (although in some cases both features can coincide). And I think whoever is burning the forest doesn't make it out of racial hate (otherwise why not attack the indigenous people directly?) but more as a way to achieve their own twisted objectives, whichever those might be. Don't think I'm defending them, I'm not! But until something which points in the direction of racism comes out, I'd just accuse them of the charges they are clearly guilty of, which are bad enough already.
The worst thing here is that even if the people who lit the fires were doing it expecting to use the soil for agriculture, those soils are great to sustain rainforests but really poor in terms of agriculture, so the damage is 1,000 and the benefit will be 1.
Now, what annoys me is the press hiding those things when the governments wave certain flags and inventing others when the government waves others. No one reports the way in which the Kirchners' sidekicks have treated the native tribes. If you don't go there and find it out for yourself, or search in the internet for the work of some lonely, heroic independent reporter, you don't even get to know anything about it. I have personally talked to natives who told me how the only dirt road that communicated their community with the rest of world was being destroyed by machines from a company that belonged to a friend of the governor, not letting them get the most basic of supplies like medicine, nor trade of any kind. People from another group in another province have told me how another firm who was in bed with the governor (another Kirchner supporter) was dumping wastes upstream in their source of water. I don't want to bore you with places and names that will mean nothing to you, but I can give them to you if you want to make sure I'm not rambling.
The policies of Evo Morales towards indigenous people in Bolivia have also been abusive, but no one reports anything either. However, Bolsonaro is not one to get in bed with the press or pay them off, so he gets accused daily of the most ridiculous bullshit. This time it was that he is happy to let others destroy the Amazonia and the natives living within it. I want to see concrete proof of his government supporting people who burn the Amazonas and destroy the native communities who live in it. Until I don't see that, I won't believe it because I know where those accusations are coming from.
In the same way, it has been shouted to the four winds that during the first six months of Bolsonaro's government, 74.155 wood fires have been reported (a number obviously too high, the desired number would be 0). However, it has been conveniently omitted that during the first six months of the previous president Lula da Silva the fires reported were 127.584, and during his whole government the Amazonas lost a hell of a lot of territory. Now Lula acts as if nothing of this had happened during his years and accuses Bolsonaro of being responsible for the fires, how cynical can you be? The fire stats were the highest during the years he governed, just look at this:
But Lula was socialist, so be it for payoff or by political sympathy, nothing about the destruction of the Amazonas during his government was blamed on him by the press and those stats were silenced.
Of course you are not supposed to know any of this. Brazil is a neighbour of Argentina and a giant in the region, so their politics are being followed closely here, but for you guys it makes less sense to follow closely a far away region which the news don't report much about and schools in the US don't seem to educate much on geography other than that of the US itself, so there's only so much that the people can do to filter information from this area. I don't trust any of the British or American main media, starting by The Guardian, the BBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times and CNN. They are hugely biased liars constantly praising or attacking according to their own convenciency, and when they are bringing news about countries which they are aware most of their audience don't know much about, it's picnic time for them. Again, I'd like the Guardian to come up with solid proof instead of lightly and irresponsibly alleging that "ministers have made clear that their sympathies are with loggers rather than the indigenous groups who live in the forest".
I now get better what your take about racism was about. I understand racism more as believing a race is superior to others. The sort of thing we are talking about here, I see it more as abuse of power in the knowledge that peoples who are less instructed in the law and how to defend their rights will have a hard time defending themselves, which is to be exected and understandable due to them living in relative isolation to the western ways that rule our countries. In order to achieve their objectives those people who have power step over the indigenous people who happen to be there interfering with their plans and who will probably be able to do nothing about it. Is that racism? I don't know, I wouldn't dare call it that. I think they would do the same regardless of the race as long as the people standing in their way are defenseless enough. As I see it, they are abusive people, not necessarily racists (although in some cases both features can coincide). And I think whoever is burning the forest doesn't make it out of racial hate (otherwise why not attack the indigenous people directly?) but more as a way to achieve their own twisted objectives, whichever those might be. Don't think I'm defending them, I'm not! But until something which points in the direction of racism comes out, I'd just accuse them of the charges they are clearly guilty of, which are bad enough already.
The worst thing here is that even if the people who lit the fires were doing it expecting to use the soil for agriculture, those soils are great to sustain rainforests but really poor in terms of agriculture, so the damage is 1,000 and the benefit will be 1.