NationStates Jolt Archive

At first sight the business resembles a thriving pottery. In a dusty courtyard women mould clay and water into hundreds of little platters and lay them out to harden under the Caribbean sun.

The craftsmanship is rough and the finished products are uneven. But customers do not object. This is Cité Soleil, Haiti's most notorious slum, and these platters are not to hold food. They are food.

Brittle and gritty - and as revolting as they sound - these are "mud cakes". For years they have been consumed by impoverished pregnant women seeking calcium, a risky and medically unproven supplement, but now the cakes have become a staple for entire families.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/29/food.internationalaidanddevelopment)

It is not for the taste and nutrition - smidgins of salt and margarine do not disguise what is essentially dirt, and the Guardian can testify that the aftertaste lingers - but because they are the cheapest and increasingly only way to fill bellies.

"It stops the hunger," said Marie-Carmelle Baptiste, 35, a producer, eyeing up her stock laid out in rows. She did not embroider their appeal. "You eat them when you have to."

These days many people have to. The global food and fuel crisis has hit Haiti harder than perhaps any other country, pushing a population mired in extreme poverty towards starvation and revolt. Hunger burns are called "swallowing Clorox", a brand of bleach.

It gets worse, the mud cakes are rising in price.

As desperation rises so does production of mud cakes, an unofficial misery index. Now even bakers are struggling. Trucked in from a clay-rich area outside the capital, Port-au-Prince, the mud is costlier but cakes still sell for 1.3p each, about the only item immune from inflation. "We need to raise our prices but it's their last resort and people won't tolerate it," lamented Baptiste, the Cité Soleil baker.

Vendors of other foods who have increased prices have been left with unsold stock. In the Policard slum, a jumble of broken concrete clinging to a mountainside, the Ducasse family tripled the price of its fritters because of surging flour prices. "Our sales have fallen by half," said Jean Ducasse, 49, poking at his tray of shrivelled wares.

Why does this happen?

Haiti's woes stem from global economic trends of higher oil and food prices, plus reduced remittances from migrant relatives affected by the US downturn. What makes the country especially vulnerable, however, is its almost total reliance on food imports.

Domestic agriculture is a disaster. The slashing and burning of forests for farming and charcoal has degraded the soil and chronic under-investment has rendered rural infrastructure at best rickety, at worst non-existent.

The woes were compounded by a decision in the 1980s to lift tariffs, when international prices were lower, and flood the country with cheap imported rice and vegetables. Consumers gained and the IMF applauded but domestic farmers went bankrupt and the Artibonite valley, the country's breadbasket, atrophied.

Now that imports are rocketing in price the government has vowed to rebuild the withered agriculture but that is a herculean task given scant resources, degraded soil and land ownership disputes.

They can't even escape.

Walk along a beach in the morning and you find Haitians gazing at the azure ocean horizon, dreaming of escape. They are fiercely proud of their history in overthrowing slavery and colonialism but these days the US, the Bahamas, the Dominican Republic - anywhere but home - seems the best option.

The only thing stopping an exodus are US coastguard patrols, said Herman Janvier, 30, a fishermen on Cap Haitian, a smuggling point. "People want out of here. It's like we're almost dead people."

The last time Janvier tried to flee he was intercepted and interned at Guantánamo Bay. "I offered to join the American army. I offered to clean their base. They said no. So I am back here, on a boat with no motor, doing what I can to survive."

Not sure what question I have other than...

...how as a world do we let this happen?

I simply don't know what to say...

This is unspeakable.

...how as a world do we let this happen?

By placing your demands above others.

By believing in mass consumerism and unrestricted capitalism.

By wanting ever increasing profit margins.

By being willing to sell the future for present satisfaction.

But mostly?

By caring only about yourself.

Don't feel so bad about it though. This is human nature. And will remain human nature until human nature wipes humanity from existence.

Aren't there active charities in Haiti that might help with vitamins and other pre-natal supplements there? I thought I saw a doc on National Geographic channel recently about a group that does that sort of thing in (I think) Haiti. My dad gives to a charity that does that kind of thing.

But mostly?

By caring only about yourself.

Don't feel so bad about it though. This is human nature.
A common claim, yet one I have never seen supported.

Indeed, the human species, as helpless as it's members are during their first few years on Terra, would not be able to survive where your claim true.

Aren't there active charities in Haiti that might help with vitamins and other pre-natal supplements there? I thought I saw a doc on National Geographic channel recently about a group that does that sort of thing in (I think) Haiti. My dad gives to a charity that does that kind of thing.

There are, thing is, some food does seem available, it simply costs money.

According to the UN, two-thirds of Haitians live on less than 50p a day and half are undernourished. "Food is available but people cannot afford to buy it. If the situation gets worse we could have starvation in the next six to 12 months," said Prospery Raymond, country director of the UK-based aid agency Christian Aid.

Could cost a lot more...

The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation predicts Haiti's food import bill will leap 80% this year, the fastest in the world. Food riots toppled the prime minister and left five dead in April. Emergency subsidies curbed prices and bought calm but the cash-strapped government is gradually lifting them. Fresh unrest is expected.

A common claim, yet one I have never seen supported.

Indeed, the human species, as helpless as it's members are during their first few years on Terra, would not be able to survive where your claim true.

Exactly. The human species mightn't be altruistic (if that's even possible) but we are all dependent on others, and almost all of us provide for others in some way or another. Capitalism and humanitarianism are perfectly compatible - that's a red herring. 300 million people with some of their own money in their pockets can do a lot more good in caring for each other than a handful of bureaucrats pushing paper. And we do, by and large.

As for Haiti, they've had problems that we're not likely to solve easily. They're justifiably skeptical of our influence on their country, given their history as a slave colony and recent dictatorship and oppression. Either way, we do take in a lot of refugees from there.

There are, thing is, some food does seem available, it simply costs money.

That's very true. I was just wondering if any of the women's charities that are active around the third world are active in Haiti. There are a few that are specifically involved in bringing hard-to-get pre-natal care to pregnant women in those places.

Not sure what question I have other than...

...how as a world do we let this happen?
By not making sure the Haitian government does what it was supposed to.

Exactly. The human species mightn't be altruistic (if that's even possible) but we are all dependent on others, and almost all of us provide for others in some way or another.
I certainly believe altruism exists (and not that bullshit Dawkins-altruism; true altruism, in the old sense of the word), but I wouldn't say that human nature is any more selfless than it is selfish.

By not making sure the Haitian government does what it was supposed to.
Perhaps, though this isn't the extent of Haiti's problems.

The country has been fucked up for a long time.

Not sure what question I have other than...

...how as a world do we let this happen?

Because I suppose it's a bit like Zimbabwe. There's not much that can be done other than all sit round and agree that it is terrible.

I mean, charity and international aid is not the answer. When problems like this are structural, rather than caused by a natural disaster, it really only makes things worse, because all you are doing is kicking the shit can down the road.

It's really something Haiti is going to have to figure out for itself.

By not making sure the Haitian government does what it was supposed to.

Elaborate?

To the applause of the IMF, they lifted import tariffs on food, allowing a surge of cheap imports and destroying local farming.

Part of the problem seem to be that they did do what we wanted.

This is human nature. And will remain human nature until human nature wipes humanity from existence.
I don't believe that for a second. Human nature is to help each other. We can't survive without it.

A common claim, yet one I have never seen supported.

Indeed, the human species, as helpless as it's members are during their first few years on Terra, would not be able to survive where your claim true.

Can you honestly say you really care about the likes of what say, the average Bosnian is going through? How about the Sudanese? Maybe the people of Zimbabwe. Or how about the Chinese caught in the recent earthquakes? How about the Myanmar people? Or for that matter, the poor and homeless in your own state/province/country? Enough to do more than say "oh dear" and go about your life? Perhaps do more than put a bit of money into the assorted charities and think you've done good?

No, I don't think so.

Like it or not, as a species, we're still trapped in the monkey sphere.

Can you honestly say you really care about the likes of what say, the average Bosnian is going through?
What constitutes 'really caring' in your books?

Moreover, what motivates you to make the massive logical leap from 'X doesn't care for strangers' (and somehow giving time, effort and money doesn't count as 'caring' in your books) to 'human beings naturally care only for themselves'.

Once again I ask you: how has the human species, and in particular human infants, survived if we naturally care only for ourselves? Why do mothers not simply abandon their babies on birth, if they inherently only care for themselves? Why are human beings such a social animal, if they inherently only care for themselves?

Vague anecdotal assertions aside, what makes you say humans are naturally selfish?

Like it or not, as a species, we're still trapped in the monkey sphere.
That would be monkeys, the highly social and co-operative species, no?

The country has been fucked up for a long time.
Look, there really is no reason for a country to be poor these days. Colonialism has been over for half a century, technology and money is flowing around the place rapidly, and governments can call on a lot of expertise to build strategies that allow them to take advantage. There is no reason why there should be poor countries by the time the 21st century ends at the latest.

Events like the one here are of course still going to happen along the way: go 100 years or so back and they would have occured in Europe or the US too. But the fact that they are occuring right now in Haiti, while some of their neighbours are doing quite well can be attributed to crappy governments getting involved in crappy politics.

To the applause of the IMF, they lifted import tariffs on food, allowing a surge of cheap imports and destroying local farming.
Local farming was destroyed by a lot more than just that, and the low price of the imports must be blamed on US subsidies. I'm just saying, there are wider causes for a country to be so poor that it actually matters to people's nutrition whether the price of rice increases. This situation is avoidable, but not if kleptomaniacal dictatorships and civil war are the order of the day.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/13/world/fg-rice13

It's not so much a question of "how could the world let this happen" as a question of "what could we actually have done". The answer is some sort of neo-colonialism in which these poor governments no longer get the chance to screw things up. But whether that is realistic is another story.

Look, there really is no reason for a country to be poor these days.
I heartily agree.

In reality, however, Haiti has suffered some serious blows, both natural and artificial.

This is horrible! Mud should be played in and not eaten! :(

While I do have to point out that Haiti having a population it's land can't support is the result of the Haitians and nobody else, not allowing migration to where food and opportunity are more plentiful seems despicable to me.

It always has.

Decades of massive economic and environmental mismanagement by brutal dictators and continuing corruption and political instability?

There's not a damn thing we can do unless there is a stable government in place to ensure our aid actually gets put to good use rather than stolen and used as a weapon to control their people, or even worse simply exported to finance another round of brutal political oppression. All of the money in the world will simply be wasted unless we take real steps to ensure it's used properly. Simply look at Burma; their government stole the rice sent as food aid and sold it on the world market, perhaps to import more luxury goods for their dictators or purchase new weapons to defend against imaginary enemies.

Even if we sent every dollar we had to those people, they would see absolutely no lasting improvement in their lives and would quite likely simply see things worsen. For now, the best we can hope to do is to stem the most horrid depths of poverty and human suffering.

Decades of massive economic and environmental mismanagement by brutal dictators and continuing corruption and political instability?

There's not a damn thing we can do unless there is a stable government in place to ensure our aid actually gets put to good use rather than stolen and used as a weapon to control their people, or even worse simply exported to finance another round of brutal political oppression. All of the money in the world will simply be wasted unless we take real steps to ensure it's used properly.

There really aren't any steps we can take. The people are a resource exploited by those that crave power. It's actually very common, though to different degrees. Look at Somalia where brutal warlords oppress and contain the only thing left of value: people for use as cannon fodder.

Look at Israel and the occupied territories of the Palestinians. Hamas and Israel manipulates their people's anger and hatred for the benefit of the few vying for power.

These and several other nations control and oppress their people because they are a resource to be exploited and nothing more. It's a trend that even infects American Politics also, but at least here there's a desire to keep people satisfied and complacent. The government here still fears the people.

I think what disgusts me most is that people are assigned to lands and governments like feudal serfs regardless of how skilled or unskilled, how compassionate or ruthless their 'lords' are and we expect them to stay put and suffer in a dignified manner.

*bleah*

What constitutes 'really caring' in your books?

About the same amount of care one would normally expect mothers to have for their children presumably. Or at least normative care in relation to blood kin. Care in the sense that you see these people not as a number, or a face, or what have you. Enough that you see them as a human being, the same as yourself, and that they bleed just like you, that your actions can affect them.

Saying "oh, that's sad" is merely a sop to salve the conscience for not caring.


Moreover, what motivates you to make the massive logical leap from 'X doesn't care for strangers' (and somehow giving time, effort and money doesn't count as 'caring' in your books)

Quote me on the bolded please.


to 'human beings naturally care only for themselves'.


Wal Mart provides cheap products, often at the expense of suppliers, who then push the costs to the laborers, who often do so in unsafe conditions for substandard wages, and in some instances, slave labor. These are publicized facts. But that doesn't stop people buying from Wal Mart.

Or how about America's adventures in the Middle East? Where murder, indefinite imprisonment and torture are not only accepted, but cheered on by a populace (not all of them admittedly) who cares for nothing but for their imaginary safety and bloodlust?

Haiti's current state is an exact example of the thinking of caring only for one's self. The removal of tariffs, cheered on by the IMF and agricultural producers, which led to the collapse of their local agriculture industry. And when the Haitians could no longer afford to buy the imports, what happens? The same agriculture exporters and IMF left them eating dirt. Who do they care about really? Certainly not the Haitians.

How about client states of Africa? Supported by China, Russia or America, these states are run by totalitarian dictators who have left nothing behind but starving populaces and crumbling infrastructure. But who cares about them? Certainly not any of these nations, unless there is benefit in castigating a client state that is supported by a rival nation.


Once again I ask you: how has the human species, and in particular human infants, survived if we naturally care only for ourselves? Why do mothers not simply abandon their babies on birth, if they inherently only care for themselves? Why are human beings such a social animal, if they inherently only care for themselves?

Why do mothers not simply abandon their babies on birth you ask? More than a few do, much like fathers who do the same. Certainly not everyone does this. But if one examines the matter closely, offspring are often seen as an extension of the parent. A part of themselves so to speak. Family lines, bloodlines, an instinctive drive that identifies related members as part of a greater collective of one. But beyond that? There is no such instinct.


That would be monkeys, the highly social and co-operative species, no?

The same species that eats the young of other monkeys from time to time, gets into fights for territory and casts out oddballs? Yes.

I think what disgusts me most is that people are assigned to lands and governments like feudal serfs regardless of how skilled or unskilled, how compassionate or ruthless their 'lords' are and we expect them to stay put and suffer in a dignified manner.
*bleah*

Probably because governments set these rules and they seem to quite like the idea.

Probably because governments set these rules and they seem to quite like the idea.

And the few groups of people with enough control over their governments to actually influence these rules don't. Partially because they are well fed and complacent, but mostly because they fear that their country might be the one desperate people want to migrate to and that such migration might actually cause them some inconvenience.

Well, there seems to be a number of causes and I'm sure we could go on all day about why, but what to do?

At some point, is there a case for nations to simply walk into places like Haiti and Zimbabwe and just take control for a while - could we trust any country to do this impartially and for the good of the people?

It just depresses me, and I know I can point to myself and ask 'what am I willing to do', but where people are down to actually paying $1 for a mud cake - words fail me.

There's an interesting accompanying article as well: Hunger Strikes (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/29/food.climatechange)

From which...

There is a passage towards the end of Raj Patel's book, Stuffed and Starved, which elevates its author to the rank of soothsayer. He wrote it at the beginning of 2007, well before the roar of anger about rising food prices that resounded across the planet and that he so uncannily and accurately predicted.

The passage begins with Patel's summary of earlier sections of the book in which he depicts the wasteland, as he calls it, of the modern food system. It is a system that destroys rural communities, poisons poor city dwellers, is inhumane to animals, demands unsustainable levels of use of fossil fuels and water, contributes to global warming, spreads disease and limits our sensuousness and compassion. As if that litany wasn't enough, he then adds this: "Perhaps most ironic, although it is controlled by some of the most powerful people on the planet, the food system is inherently weak. It has systemic and structural vulnerabilities that lie close to the surface of our daily lives. All it takes to expose them is a gentle jolt."

His analysis shows how communities around the planet have been disempowered by a system that appears to offer an abundance of cheap food, but in reality dictates unhealthy and limited choices to an overworked and underpaid workforce that cannot afford any better. "The figure that often stuns people outside the US when I tour with the book is that 20% of American fast-food meals are eaten in cars. People are incredulous and ask: is that because Americans so love their cars? But living here you see how hard people work, for a pittance, with no healthcare, no decent education, not even a hint of a pension - so it's not surprising that the one hot meal you eat a day you eat off your lap. That's where the food system becomes a lifestyle."

And then the agricultural slurry really hit the fan. The first intimations of something truly out of the ordinary came in Mexico in early 2007, before he had finished writing Stuffed and Starved. There were reports of unrest in some of the larger cities about rising food prices, partly related to the decision of the US government to divert huge quantities of corn to ethanol production, in an attempt to reduce dependence on foreign oil. Then early this year some eight months after Patel had finished writing about the risk of gentle jolts - the so-called "silent tsunami" began. Food prices appeared to be out of control, spiralling up by 68% in the case of rice in the first four months of this year alone. Wheat and corn almost doubled in a year.

Wild events in turn prompted wild official responses. Vietnam introduced a night curfew on harvesting machines to stop illegal raiding of the fields; any Filipino caught hoarding rice was threatened with life in jail, Malaysia cancelled all public building works and switched instead to stockpiling food. Even the rich western world was hit. Food prices in the UK have risen almost 7% year on year, shaking the government's economic confidence. And if any doubts remained about the severity of this crisis, Wal-Mart, the supermarket goliath that stands at the pinnacle of the modern food system, announced it was imposing a four-bag limit for rice on its cash-and-carry customers to stop a run on supplies.

Doesn't look good.

This is the results of capitalism, it ends in barbarism, starvation, decay and social breakdown.

Socialism and the liberation of the toiling unpropertied is the only solution.

Giving everything to a government ran by sociopaths and corrupt bureaucrats interested in their luxury and perpetuation in power at the expense of the misery and annihilation of every liberty of those outside of the party doesn't fancy me as "liberation", let alone as "socialism". And I doubt Haiti is really worse than a sort of Death Camp called Gulag.

Of course, this is directed at those who for some reason read that post above rather than to its OP.

The morally and intellectually bankrupt ideology of authoritarian socialism, which history proved to be complete failure, is not the answer to the also far from desirable capitalism*.

*Unless you are rich.

These dozens of millions have much to say about it:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Chinese

This is horrible! Mud should be played in and not eaten! :(
Hmph, it's because you are so rich that eating mud seems horrible to you. What's next, bread should be played in and not eaten?? :mad:

:p

snip
I think you have caught the disease known as 'libertarianism'

Cure: Reality.

What's next, bread should be played in and not eaten??

:p

Can't it be both?

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Chinese
Oh great, more bourgeois propaganda.

I think you have caught the disease known as 'libertarianism'

Cure: Reality.

Surely a bullet in the head comrade?

Surely a bullet in the head comrade?

If only.

I think you have caught the disease known as 'libertarianism'

Cure: Reality.

The reality is that although still quite flawed and with its share of "tyranny by the majority", it worked far better than the completely bankrupt Police State with Government Monopolized capitalism called Soviet Union:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain

And it could have gone further if the Checas did not ruin Republican Spain by instilling tyranny and butchering POUM.

But I won't waste my time with what seems to be a faint evidence of a very terrible possibility:

http://www.elfis.net/elfol4/e4pkdomc.html

snip
Stop spamming me fool.

You are merely an extension of bourgeois property, and a propaganda tool for the ruling class.

Can't it be both?
No. Think of the people starving, think of the bacteria you'll put in the food if you do that!

Andaras, take a look at this:

http://www.joystiq.com/media/2006/02/queen_of_diamonds.jpg

No. Think of the people starving, think of the bacteria you'll put in the food if you do that!

Which is probably why I prefer to play in mud. :p

--queen of diamonds--
:confused:
Which is probably why I prefer to play in mud. :p
Think of the people who will eat that mud!

:confused:

Think of the people who will eat that mud!

Any errant bacteria will probably double or triple the nutritional value. :p

Any errant bacteria will probably double or triple the nutritional value. :p
And what bacteria is that?

:confused:

Hint: The Manchurian Candidate

And what bacteria is that?

Gooficillicis Clowniditae. *nod*

Gooficillicis Clowniditae. *nod*
Oh. I'm allergic to that. Thank you for informing me that you exude the bacteria that killed me more than once.

About the same amount of care one would normally expect mothers to have for their children presumably. Or at least normative care in relation to blood kin. Care in the sense that you see these people not as a number, or a face, or what have you. Enough that you see them as a human being, the same as yourself, and that they bleed just like you, that your actions can affect them.
Then I'd say yes, many, many people (and I'd like to think of myself as one of these people, having given my time, money and effort to help those outside of my near kin) care for others.

Quote me on the bolded please.
Perhaps do more than put a bit of money into the assorted charities and think you've done good?
You seem to be dismissing charity, which takes time, effort and money. If I was too strong in my assumption of your position, apologies are in order.

Wal Mart provides cheap products, often at the expense of suppliers, who then push the costs to the laborers, who often do so in unsafe conditions for substandard wages, and in some instances, slave labor. These are publicized facts. But that doesn't stop people buying from Wal Mart.

Or how about America's adventures in the Middle East? Where murder, indefinite imprisonment and torture are not only accepted, but cheered on by a populace (not all of them admittedly) who cares for nothing but for their imaginary safety and bloodlust?
Once again, what do these have to do with human nature? For every piece of anecdotal 'evidence' to show how humans are cruel of selfish, I can pull up a piece of anecdotal 'evidence' to show how humans are kind and selfless. If you want to argue that human beings are capable of selfish acts, I'm certainly not going to argue against you. But you've a long way to go to show how humans are naturally or innately selfish.

Why do mothers not simply abandon their babies on birth you ask? More than a few do, much like fathers who do the same.
Again, this shows nothing to conclude that humans are naturally selfish. Merely identifying that some humans abandon their children says little about human nature; it would be as strange as concluding that, from your assertions above, humans are 'naturally' inclined to abandon their children.

Certainly not everyone does this. But if one examines the matter closely, offspring are often seen as an extension of the parent. A part of themselves so to speak. Family lines, bloodlines, an instinctive drive that identifies related members as part of a greater collective of one. But beyond that? There is no such instinct.
On the contrary, altruism is an essential part of group selection in evolution, as it is an essential part of mutualism, while helping behaviour is essential to direct and indirect reciprocity.

The same species that eats the young of other monkeys from time to time, gets into fights for territory and casts out oddballs? Yes.
Case in point; you've highlighted acts of selfish behaviour in monkeys, while I've highlighted acts of selfless behaviour in them. We could do this for hours, but I think it's much more productive to say that we don't have any evidence either way (and I, for one, don;t believe there is any evidence either way).

You can't simply point to some members of a species that sometimes act selfishly and say, "that species is naturally selfish".

The country has been fucked up for a long time.

I'm afraid that's very much the truth. Haiti is an ecological disaster due to the massive deforestation. Poor decisions made in the past have condemned the future of Haiti, technically speaking we're dealing with a failed state here.