Framing: HIV vs. Malaria

The readings and discussions around the way that things are framed in the media got me to thinking about diseases like HIV and Malaria.  When I received my invitation to serve as a health promoter in Peace Corps, I knew instantly that I would be doing HIV related work but I didn't even think about doing malaria related work (or becoming infected) until I did some reading about the country and its major health issues.  It turns out, malaria is the #1 killer in Mozambique and is a major threat to a number of countries around the world.  Part of me knew this, like I know lots of information that has gone dormant since sixth grade health class, but I, and my fellow PCVs, definitely felt that HIV gets more attention stateside for obvious reasons.  The BBC recently reported that malaria cases have reached a 40-year high (something like 1,900 cases) this year.  Of course most if not all of these cases are individuals who have traveled to a place where Malaria is endemic.  Perhaps that's the reason why malaria (an infectious disease which can kill a person within days of transmission) gets less attention than HIV- endemic vs. epidemic.  It's not an issue in the states, so unless we're traveling why would U.S.-Americans worry about it?  I can't help but notice that I've seen HIV more often in entertainment than I have seen malaria.  Just two weeks ago, my roommate and I were watching "The Cure" which is about a boy with HIV.  RENT, of course, is also a widely known rock and roll show which brought attention to HIV.  "Philadelphia" was another film that did this on a smaller scale.

"Mary and Martha", which is a BBC film about malaria, was released in March of this year, but I can't think of any other films that are centered around malaria.

How We Got to Where We Are and Who We Are

The readings assigned in our class have led many students to at least skeptically question whether the United States, as a government rather than as a people, could be a nation of tyrannical device.  The history and development of the communications field, as we’ve read, is one shrouded in propaganda, psychological warfare, and attempts at putting to use the notions of mind control and other militaristic, aggressive methods of the strong over the weak, those in power over those without, and, as we’ve discussed, those First World players who have fiat capital over those who couldn’t possibly work hard enough to get sufficient funds to become players in the greater game.

“Oliver Stone’s Untold History of the United States” is a thoughtful reexamination of the same period of time in which the development of the communications field has blossomed.  His series sends the clear message that history books, as they are written by those who can dominate the message and the power of a First World superpower, can conveniently leave out the dissenting and difficult details that aid in completing the so-called whole truth.

The Daily Beast’s writers, Andrew Romano and Michael Moynihan, both smother themselves in the othering of Oliver Stone’s retelling of American history.  This is likely due to the very reason that Stone underlines as the sickness of American exceptionalism.  We are a people living in fear, and often what we fear is the notion that our government could be no better than the tyrant of any other institution of power.  The American identity is defensively protected by a people whose nationalism could see no fault in their own country despite the innumerable criticisms of the politicians who run it, who are elected by the public.

These criticisms overflow into the international scene, as well.  If the argument could be made that what makes the United States hegemony worthwhile is its superiority over other nations, then what good does our superiority over other nations do if our citizenry can neither be better off than those of many other nations nor are able to critically examine the faults that have led us to such a place?

Oliver Stone’s series is a wonderful glimpse into how we got to where we are and who we are.

Who Speaks for the Trees?

I've recently been following this story about an invasive species: The Emerald Ash Borer.
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_24509610/emerald-ash-borer-puts-colorado-alert?source=most_viewed
It's pertinent to me, because as a home owner in Denver, I had contemplated planting an Ash tree in my own yard.  Now, I am forced to reconsider for the obvious reason that there's a high probability I would have to remove it at some point in the not to distant future.  But being a local, I also remember references to Dutch Elm Disease, and growing up, I never knew what a chestnut was (other than from the Christmas song) and research has revealed to me that a blight on American Chestnut trees in the early 20th Century virtually wiped them all out, to the point where the chestnut is a relative rarity in much of North America even to this day, at least as compared to other nuts.  Going back even further, the Black Death in Europe was triggered by pre-modern trade.  So what does it all mean?  Well this got me to thinking about the negative consequences of globalization inadvertent or otherwise.  There have always been implications in this regard from international trade but sometimes people bring an invasive species with them on purpose such as with cats, dogs, sheep, cattle etc. and other times it is accidental as with various pest bugs, rats, diseases and the like.  But whatever the case, the consequences can be significant if not dire.  Any of us who have traveled have likely gone through various agricultural screening processes (I distinctly remember a friendly beagle used to sniff out food).  In our daily lives we might think that a single seed or a smudge of mud as trivial so its rather suprising just how damaging this 'clash of biological spheres' can have on the environment, our wallets and government budgets.  But it also occured to me that there might be similar unforeseen consequences to our communications with one another across borders.  Perhaps the disasters in the natural world informed (in part, or subconciously) Huntington's thesis on the 'clash of civilizations'.  Not that I subscribe to his position, but certainly, there have been plenty of manmade disasters in the form of wars, slavery, poverty and genocide which can also be viewed as darker aspects of globalization.  Certainly we can see in reactions from some sections of the public in Middle Eastern societies to what is accepted behavior in the West, as a potential source for conflict but what are the unforeseen sources?  Is there something truly alien between two civilizations that can lead to devastation in the future?  I'm going to take a more optimistic view on this and say no, not no unequivocally, but no in the sense that I think that as a species, we've been through the worst of it.
Unlike, birds, bugs, and bacteria, we have the ability at least, to communicate with one another even if we're unable to agree with or understand each other.  Secondly, I think that communications technology allows us more potential to foresee potential conflicts and even offers a virtual sphere in which to play out those arguments and can mitigate (though admittedly online quarrels sometimes escalate out of the web and onto the streets) what enters the physical realm.  Finally, and ultimately, we are part of a single species with a shared genetic history and common psychology.  Whatever our differences, I believe we are better equiped to sort through them than might a host and its parasite.  Still, it would be wise to remain vigilant concerning the unexpected costs of globalization, both in the physical realm and between cultures.

The Pitfalls of Jargon

The Guardian's Development section regularly breaks down particular pieces of jargon that are used within the realm of international development. Their article today breaks down a particularly interesting concept that I had not known prior, that of "elite capture."

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/nov/13/development-jargon-decoded-elite-capture

In short, "elite capture" is defined as elites in local communities ("village heads, the chiefs of indigenous groups, or local government bigwigs") taking control of donations to the community and using the money for their own purposes. So, when a village gets a grant for building a well, the village head takes the money and buys a car for themselves.

I found that the use of "elite" contrasted greatly with how we have discussed elites throughout class. CNN, the BBC, the IMF, the World Bank, and western governmental powers are not the elites. They are those in control of local communities. No, the world is not flat, and there are vertical lines of power throughout the world. Community leaders, in general, do have more power than the average citizen in that community. Yes, this type of corruption exists throughout the world and is a problem that should be identified and addressed where it is present. However, it is striking to me that "elite" has been used in these contexts.

As the article notes, "elite capture" was developed in reaction to participatory development concepts. The thinking went that when power is given to local "elites," they take control of the donations and use if for their benefits. Therefore, organizations like the World Bank need to maintain control to prevent this corruption and maintain the integrity of the donation.

From a communication standpoint, I see this as almost hijacking the meaning of a word. I find that this to be a reminder of how important words can be in describing international development, or other international phenomenon for that matter. Additonally, is shows how different "elites," whether the IMF or an indigenous chief, can take control of a conversation through subtle means. Through researching my paper, I have found this to be a the case around how "participatory" is used by different actors in the development field.

What other examples of hijacking have you seen in jargon, either in international development or other fields?

Cultural Miscommunication

A fun little end-of-quarter anecdote for y'all, courtesy of my roommate.

My roommate, whom we shall call Lisa, was on a mission trip in Uganda over the summer. While there, she befriended one of the native staff members, a man whom we shall call Chris. Lisa, ever the curious individual, asked Chris many question about Uganda, the people, the culture and their traditions.

One topic they often talked about, because it was so interesting to her, was the concept of marriage. In Uganda, apparently, marriage is less an affair of love and more a business arrangement. Dowries and asking for permission are still very much a part of marriage in Uganda, things completely foreign to Lisa.

Chris, meanwhile, knew a lot about the Western (or, perhaps more correctly, the United States) concept of marriage, as two of his friends had married women from the United States. He showed Lisa how much he knew when, near the end of her trip, he got down on one knee and proposed to her.

Lisa can't quite remember her exact words, but they were something along the lines of "No no no. Please get up, please get up." Chris had already gone to his family to ask for permission, and already had a proper dowry in mind, much to his dismay.

So what happened? How is it that innocent conversations would lead Chris to propose?

Well, as it turns out, the conversations weren't so innocent. In Uganda, apparently, it is extremely uncommon for a woman to speak with a man in public, especially so informally, and especially about marriage. Such conversations are often considered part of dating. In fact, discussions about marriage are usually what lead to marriage. Lisa didn't understand these boundaries and cultural norms, and actually got in trouble with the company she travelled with for causing such a commotion -- though, in her defense, Chris never explained what their conversations meant in the context of his culture.

What You Are Doesn't Define WHO You Are

Ever since reading Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations?" it's never been so clear to me on how I feel about my own culture.

From a very young age I found myself identifying as Mexican because that is where my parents are from and that is where most of my family was located. My older brothers teased me and made fun of me, saying I was a wanna-be Mexican because I was a "gringa." It didn't make sense to me at first, but as I grew older I started understanding that people basically said they were from wherever they were born, and since I was born in Colorado that officially made me an American. After that I'd identify myself as American, and continued to be bullied by my brothers who would give me a hard time of being a fake Mexican.

While I was in middle school, I came to a horrible realization: I didn't understand my fellow American classmates. Besides the fact that I taught myself English and was self-conscience about speaking, I also didn't understand how American culture worked. I mean this in that when I went home after school, I was used to the way my family behaved, which is in more Mexican ways than American ones. It was difficult for me to relate to my non-Latino classmates, and as much as I tried to fit in, I was oblivious to the fact that my classmates themselves were leaving me out of the circle because I was considered "different." I looked very much white, with light skin, colored eyes and light-colored hair, but everyone sensed I was like "them," I didn't act American.

It wasn't until high school that I found the Latino group of students and quickly adapted the Mexican label again and immediately dropped the American one. While I lived abroad and had to attend several events with fellow exchange students, I constantly struggled to get away from my American label. I hung out with the other Mexican exchange students, posed with the Mexican flag for pictures and what not, but when it came down to it our guardians forced me to join the Americans because that is who I was officially being sponsored by: The United States.

And it was always so, a constant struggle to understand what I was and where I came from. When I started college, my oldest brother and I came to an agreement. We were neither Mexican nor American. We were in this middle no-man's-land, not truly belonging to either side. We considered ourselves American in the fact that we were born here, but that was all. We considered ourselves  Mexican because that is where our roots come from, but our customs and habits could not fall under one specific category.

To come back full circle, it was when I read in Huntington's article that "People have levels of identity" (24) that it all finally clicked in my head. Yes, that completely summed me up: I have different levels of identity. I am part of many different communities and sub-cultures, making up my different levels, and that is why I could never really feel at home in either the American or Mexican culture.

It would be easier to just tell people that I too, like the Greek philosopher said, am a citizen of the world. But, that never satisfies anyone's curiosity. People always wanna know what you are. American? What kind of American? Irish? Italian? Hispanic? What kind of Hispanic? Mexican? Spanish? Argentinean? I think it's important for people to understand that just because you are labeled as a specific race doesn't mean that defines you as a person. I may still have trouble understanding and socializing with Americans, but I'm always willing to learn more about others, and maybe one day the "clashing" of cultures will stop. 

Social Media Turning the Tables

The recent class discussions regarding the evolving influence of social media over traditional power structures reminded me of a crime committed in Macedonia while I was living there.

What occurred was a police officer had beaten to death a young 22 year old man during a celebration about the recent election results. The death was initially reported blandly, stating that a young man was found dead near the city center, nothing more. Within a few hours of the report social media members, primarily youths, took to Facebook and Twitter and demanded answers. Peaceful protests were organized and held largely without incidence. After a few days went by government officials came out stating that in fact the young man had been beaten to death by a police officer and subsequently arrested.

During my time in Macedonia I worked often with the local municipality and became intimately aware of the futility of the judicial system within the country, so, this development was fascinating to me because of the speed with which social media was able to challenge the official position and effect change. While the government of Macedonia today is far from powerless, they definitely cannot ignore the new contender in the ring.

Here is a link of a typical blog post following the protests:

http://www.movements.org/blog/entry/young-people-erupt-in-macedonia-after-23-year-old-is-killed-by-police-danie/

as well as a link to traditional journalism coverage regarding the protests.

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/macedonian-youth-protests-gain-momentum