Sanctions and Genocide

[koan]

islamofascism strikes out at a religious affiliation. affluenza does not speak to a specific race, creed or religion. Unless you want to claim that materialism is a religion.

[koan]

Here's some fun news. New words being added to the Oxford English Dictionary: affluenza and islamophobia. Sorry, islamofascism is not on the list.

[koan]

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_n8981606

A recent press release from Webster's New World College Dictionary declared "affluenza" its word of the month.

The word, which blends "affluence" and "influenza," means: 1. the ill effects of sudden wealth, or 2. The sluggish and unfulfilled feeling that results from keeping up with the Joneses.

Many in the church already knew of this illness that affects society-and offer cures for this materialistic malady. Some congregations have even made affluenza the focus of Bible studies or stewardship discussions. For ideas and resources go to: www.affluenza.com and www.pbs.org/kcts/affluenza. Also, see The Lutheran, March 1999, page 8; and www.thelutheran.org/ 9903/focus.html.


I'm having fun, are you?

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: islamofascism strikes out at a religious affiliation. affluenza does not speak to a specific race, creed or religion. Unless you want to claim that materialism is a religion.


influenza is a disease. are you saying materialism is a biological mechanism susceptible to infection?



please, step down from your high horse.



i would maintain that saying that someone is diseased because they accumulate material possessions is just as offensively 'striking out' at something you don't like.

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: Here's some fun news. New words being added to the Oxford English Dictionary: affluenza and islamophobia. Sorry, islamofascism is not on the list.


"being added" != "in"

[koan]

If the Oxford English Dictionary and Websters say it's acceptable who am I to argue? The point at hand is that it does not discriminate against race, religion or creed.

Meanwhile, Christopher Hitchens, often credited with coining the word "islamofascism" denies inventing or using it. You like Hitchens, don't you? Why would Hitchens not want to use this term? Perhaps because it disgraces his argument? I'm just speculating. It is, however, not being added to the dictionaries at the moment.

[koan]

OED has not only a definition for "affluenza" (albeit one that does not indicate the jocular nature of the term), but five perfectly documented quotations from very credible and widely read sources, proving that the word has been in use at least since 1979.


source

yup "being added" = "in"

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: If the Oxford English Dictionary and Websters say it's acceptable who am I to argue? The point at hand is that it does not discriminate against race, religion or creed.
more equivocation. *your* point at hand is that you like the term affluenza, even though it can be used in a derogatory fashion. you dislike islamofascism, even though it can be used in a non-derogatory fashion.



this is unsurprising.





Meanwhile, Christopher Hitchens, often credited with coining the word "islamofascism" denies inventing or using it.


that's correct - because he didn't coin the term.





You like Hitchens, don't you?
yes, i do.





Why would Hitchens not want to use this term? Perhaps because it disgraces his argument? I'm just speculating. It is, however, not being added to the dictionaries at the moment.


your speculation is laughable. are you trying to make truly pathetically bad arguments? hitchens denies coining the term because - shockingly - he didn't coin the term. he still uses the term when ever it applies to the discussion. he hasn't stopped using the term, so your entire argument is nothing but hot air. but do try the old chestnut of 'guilt by association' - i like hitchens, hitchens denies coining the term, you conflate that to not *using* the term, assume your conflation means that it 'disgraces' his argument.



what a pile of crap.

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: source



yup "being added" = "in"


very good.



eventually islamofascism will be added too, i'm sure. either way - are you saying that if a recently coined term that *is not* in a dictionary, it therefore does not exist, or is invalid? does that mean that affluenza was not a real term, and therefore could not be used, before it was in the OED?



i love ex post facto justifications. islamofascism - along with islamofascist, and the older term, islamist, which isn't as strong a condemnation as the former - is obviously a real term, and it can be used in a non-derogatory, non-pejorative way. i do so every time i use it. so, regardless of how much you caterwall, it's not going to change the reality of its usage.



i've never heard it used, but i'd certainly use the term christofascist if it applied, and it does to some. using a term to describe extremist behavior is perfectly valid.

[koan]

You have failed to post references to the word "islamofascist" or "islamofascism" showing its acceptance as a legitimate nonbiased term. I have posted many regarding affluenza.

your claims to have used it in a "non-derogatory, non-pejorative way" are laughable.

ETA: in fact I'm wiping tears of mirth from my eyes at the moment

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: You have failed to post references to the word "islamofascist" or "islamofascism" showing its acceptance as a legitimate nonbiased term. I have posted many regarding affluenza.



your claims to have used it in a "non-derogatory, non-pejorative way" are laughable.



ETA: in fact I'm wiping tears of mirth from my eyes at the moment


maybe the tears will help clear your jaundiced and narrow vision.

[koan]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 05,00.html

1-0 in the propaganda war

How the right played the fascism card against Islam

Albert Scardino

Friday February 4, 2005

The Guardian

Fascism is coming back into fashion, at least in the propaganda wars. For the right, it comes in the shape of a new word: "islamofascism". That conflates all the elements into one image: suicide bombs, kidnappings and the Qur'an; the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan; Iranian clerics and Hitler.


I thought you hated propaganda, anastrophe. I guess when it suits your purpose it's not propaganda. Is the Guardian a bad source as well? At least I offer some.

I leave it up to the other viewers as to who's eyes are jaundiced and narrow. I don't like to name call, like certain members do.

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 05,00.html





I thought you hated propaganda, anastrophe. I guess when it suits your purpose it's not propaganda. Is the Guardian a bad source as well? At least I offer some.



I leave it up to the other viewers as to who's eyes are jaundiced and narrow. I don't like to name call, like certain members do.


ahem. so - you'll post opinion pieces that support your view, thus legitimizing your view of the word - but opinion pieces by others that don't support your view - well, they don't exist, do they? clearly they don't - since you don't look for them. and if you can't see it, it's not there, right koan?



you side with the islamofascists, that's fine - it's hardly surprising, and it's hardly unexpected.



i have no problem with muslims whatsoever. frankly, i could not care less whom someone worships. it pleases me when people to have faith, as i have a great loathing for atheism. but even them i can live with.



the islamofascists are a specific bunch. you know - the guy from hezbollah who's unapologetic in wanting to kill as many israeli civilians as he can, guys like that. their "faith" is in a deeply violent, warped notion of righteousness, of the absolute necessity for shar'ia law. those who are not of the faith are infidels, and they have no qualms about killing them. i condemn that mentality - characterized as islamofascism. you apologize for it, relentlessly, and unrepentantly. it's a lovely crowd you wish to hang with. sadly, 'hang' is exactly what they have in mind for intellectuals. female intellectuals - well, i won't even hazard what they would like to do with them.



people like islamofascists are a threat to freedom, and a threat to peace in the world. again, you certainly have the privilege to apologize for their ghastly mindset. i will not however. and i will continue to use the term where it is appropriate.



there are numerous opinion pieces out there that delve into the notion of islamofascism. i'm glad you found one that supports your point of view. too bad that's the only point of view you are capable of seeing.

[koan]

it is impossible for me to apologise for "islamofascists" because, as stated, I don't believe it exists as a phenomenon.

it is impossible for me to deny other sources because you haven't posted any.

[Lulu2]

(Might I just step in here a moment and ask if you two are having a slightly odd FLIRTATION? You seem so well matched.)

[anastrophe]

Lulu2 wrote: (Might I just step in here a moment and ask if you two are having a slightly odd FLIRTATION? You seem so well matched.)




:yh_sick

[koan]

Lulu2 wrote: (Might I just step in here a moment and ask if you two are having a slightly odd FLIRTATION? You seem so well matched.)


If a more twisted world were possible you might be right.

I pray daily that I am over those masochistic days. Nice show stopper though.

[anastrophe]

actually, lulu's comment has spurred me to walk away from this. time to employ the ignore list again. i'll never get these minutes of my life back, wasted talking to a wall.



do take this as my defeat koan. you are the winner. you wore me down with your circular arguments, from which there are no exits.

[koan]

The only circle was that I had to keep asking for sources while continuing to supply new ones of my own. I happily accept the victory. About freakin' time, imo.

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: The only circle was that I had to keep asking for sources while continuing to supply new ones of my own. I happily accept the victory. About freakin' time, imo.


the one pleasure of the process was sending you scurrying hither and yon for sources. i have a pile of sources (real sources, not "but it came up in the first ten google search results!"). but it's more fun to make you do all the work.



as it is, you rejected every statement i made, so posting sources would have been more of the same.

[koan]

that's the weakest thing I've heard you say in a long time.

I'll go ahead with ignore since you seem to have forgotten.

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: that's the weakest thing I've heard you say in a long time.



I'll go ahead with ignore since you seem to have forgotten.




considering your *own* listed reference - wikipedia - contains references and links to contrary views (on the term islamofascist, i should clarify), it's clear that - to you - if you ignore it, you can pretend it's not there.



hope you don't stub your toe, what with wearing those blinkers all the time.



ta ta!

[koan]

I see the email notification from ignored users isn't corrected yet.

you lose ana "straw man"

I thought you studied logical fallacies in order to avoid them not to arm yourself. Anyway. You admit defeat. I accept your admission. It's over.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: yawn. your scrutiny, thankfully, is as meaningful to me as what the wines of shiraz become.That is a singlularly unhelpful observation in this thread. You become more boorish as you grow older.

The difference in the words earlier discussed is that there's no inherent fascism in Islam, whereas there is inherent sickness in affluence. I'm happy to expand on either or both statements if that would be helpful, defining all four concepts and showing the association, or lack of association, between each.

Do, please, try to be more friendly online. Try to accomodate. Try hard to make messaging with you here a pleasant experience. It takes effort but the reward for others is noticeable, not least those who subsequently read the thread.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: That is a singlularly unhelpful observation in this thread. You become more boorish as you grow older.
thanks for sharing.





The difference in the words earlier discussed is that there's no inherent fascism in Islam, whereas there is inherent sickness in affluence.


oh please. i shouldn't need to point out that that's a value judgement you're making - no more or less so than there is in suggesting that radical, fundamentalist islam, as preached by a great many mullahs, positively reaks of fascism. some of the affluent may be inherently ill; suggesting that all are, reaks of bigotry. i'm not suggesting that all of islam is fascist.





I'm happy to expand on either or both statements if that would be helpful, defining all four concepts and showing the association, or lack of association, between each.


since you failed the first notion above, why bother?





Do, please, try to be more friendly online. Try to accomodate. Try hard to make messaging with you here a pleasant experience. It takes effort but the reward for others is noticeable, not least those who subsequently read the thread.


um, bite me?

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: oh please. i shouldn't need to point out that that's a value judgement you're making - no more or less so than there is in suggesting that radical, fundamentalist islam, as preached by a great many mullahs, positively reaks of fascism. some of the affluent may be inherently ill; suggesting that all are, reaks of bigotry. i'm not suggesting that all of islam is fascist.We have a wordshitter on radio called Roger Scruton who similarly abuses language. It's a gross sin, it abandons all option of discussion in favor of propagandism. I'm not interested in propagandising anyone, I want to discuss matters. Islamofascism equates one "guaranteed" ill with the matter to be discussed. If you could manage without it, you'd stop inherently cutting off all the rest of Islam at a stroke. Islam is not fascist. Fascism is a right-wing political approach to western government, not a religion nor an aspect of Islamic government. Islamic government may be undemocratic or it may not be - it depends how it's constituted - but it has nothing to do with fascism.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: We have a wordshitter on radio called Roger Scruton who similarly abuses language. It's a gross sin, it abandons all option of discussion in favor of propagandism. I'm not interested in propagandising anyone, I want to discuss matters. Islamofascism equates one "guaranteed" ill with the matter to be discussed. If you could manage without it, you'd stop inherently cutting off all the rest of Islam at a stroke. Islam is not fascist. Fascism is a right-wing political approach to western government, not a religion nor an aspect of Islamic government. Islamic government may be undemocratic or it may not be - it depends how it's constituted - but it has nothing to do with fascism.


dance as fast as you can away from the points i made. islamofascism is a characterization of a particular brand of radical, fundamentalist islam. to deny that it exists is a worse form of propoganda than identifying it. i did not say that islam is fascist. are you suggesting that affluence is a virus that once caught, spreads and mutates rapidly in the human population? fascinating. perhaps we can find a way to clone it and spread it to the poor, so that they can have something more than dirty water and dirt for a floor? i was unaware that affluence could be so easily acquired. oh - wait - are you suggesting that some people who are affluent exhibit traits that are similar to illness? bravo then. now you're catching on. follow the logic forward dear friend. think it through - i'm sure you'll see where it's going.



i have absolutely no problem with the islamic faith. there are millions upon millions of muslims who go about their daily business, bothering none, with no desire to convert others to their faith - either by encouragement or force. the same can be said for christians worldwide, and buddhists and hindu.



denying that there are radical, violent factions within islam, that wish to subjugate other populations under the banner of islam, by violence and force, is to deny reality. would you similarly deny that there are radical, fundamentalist christians (the 'christian right", the demi-synonymous term to islamofascism) who preach hate, and violence, in service to their warped interpretation of gospel? if you don't deny that they exist, then why do you deny that islamofascists exist?

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: Fascism is a right-wing political approach to western government, not a religion nor an aspect of Islamic government. Islamic government may be undemocratic or it may not be - it depends how it's constituted - but it has nothing to do with fascism.


furthermore, your definition of fascism is outdated and narrow. mussolini may have been the first fascist; his model however does not define all who have come after. there are many different interpretations and implementations of fascism. i should not have to point this out. warping the argument by demanding accuracy of terms, while warping the meaning of the terms themselves, does your argument no justice.

[spot]

Here then, surely, is an answer to the dichotomy. Instead of blithely and inequitably using "Islamofascist" and "Christian Right" (one hateful by virtue of its very nomenclature and as you know, but ignore, identified by many readers as "Islam is fascist" and the other no worse by name than "Democrat Right" or "Republican Right" or "the right-wing tendencies of the New Labour Party since 1996") consider how your hairs would bristle at "Christofascist" being substituted to balance the picture. By no means is Christofascist anything other than inflammatory. Similarly, Islamofascist is inflammatory. Perhaps if we settle for the match-like-with-like Islamic Right as an epithet for that faction or tendency within Islam which has pretensions of control equivalent with the Christian Right?

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: Here then, surely, is an answer to the dichotomy. Instead of blithely and inequitably using "Islamofascist" and "Christian Right" (one hateful by virtue of its very nomenclature and as you know, but ignore, identified by many readers as "Islam is fascist" and the other no worse by name than "Democrat Right" or "Republican Right" or "the right-wing tendencies of the New Labour Party since 1996") consider how your hairs would bristle at "Christofascist" being substituted to balance the picture. By no means is Christofascist anything other than inflammatory. Similarly, Islamofascist is inflammatory. Perhaps if we settle for the match-like-with-like Islamic Right as an epithet for that faction or tendency within Islam which has pretensions of control equivalent with the Christian Right?


apparently you haven't read the entire thread yet - merely leaping ahead to chastise me for my 'wines of shiraz' comment. bravo again old boy. do catch up with the thread and experience the ignominy of your tardiness.



do continue to deny the existence of the one while acknowledging the other, if only because the euphemism happens to be less bothersome.



islamofascist is an accurate descriptor for radical fundamentalist zealots who are hell-bent for the reinstallation of the caliphate, and forcible subjugation of the masses to (totalitarian, and medieval in the balance!) shar'ia law. of course, those unwilling to bend, are easily enough dispensed. for reference, see "hezbollah", and "al qaeda".

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: apparently you haven't read the entire thread yet - merely leaping ahead to chastise me for my 'wines of shiraz' comment. bravo again old boy. do catch up with the thread and experience the ignominy of your tardiness.You don't seem to grasp that I'm putting in 60 hour weeks and programing around the edges at the moment, I haven't the leisure. My points are posted more for others than for you. I've long since passed the point of considering your style of argument readable, attractive or capable of leading to resolution on any topic at all. Mt comment on the disparity between "right" and "fascist" when labelling what you don't loathe compared to what you do is pertinent, whether it's been mentioned earlier or not. Islamofascist isn't a term I find remotely helpful, I find it more likely to divide people into factions than to generate illumination. Divide away, but don't expect me to applaud. Your damned White House is doing it, after all, and I regard them as deserving of whatever punishment society at large can acquire the power to impose. They've had more than enough rope to show their true colors, if you'll excuse the mixing. They've permanently besmirched the regard in which your country was once justly held.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: You don't seem to grasp that I'm putting in 60 hour weeks and programing around the edges at the moment, I haven't the leisure. My points are posted more for others than for you. I've long since passed the point of considering your style of argument readable, attractive or capable of leading to resolution on any topic at all.
you were saying something about 'boorish' earlier. i see you're providing an example of the behavior for others here. delicious!





Mt comment on the disparity between "right" and "fascist" when labelling what you don't loathe compared to what you do is pertinent, whether it's been mentioned earlier or not.
oh absolutely. and you loathe and revile the affluent. so of course, affluenza would warm the cockles of your penurious heart.





Islamofascist isn't a term I find remotely helpful, I find it more likely to divide people into factions than to generate illumination.


as with affluenza as well. do express contempt for all who are affluent, baselessly. that's sure to bring together the various classes. indeed.





Divide away, but don't expect me to applaud.
i don't believe i even expressed the expectation that you'd have something relevant to contribute on the matter, so i certainly didn't expect your applause.





Your damned White House is doing it, after all, and I regard them as deserving of whatever punishment society at large can acquire the power to impose. They've had more than enough rope to show their true colors, if you'll excuse the mixing. They've permanently besmirched the regard in which your country was once justly held.


what a load. the USA has been reviled around the world for a century. we're second only to great britain in the contempt the third-world holds for us, imperialists that we both are, destroying cultures round the world in the name of capitalism and christian values.



spare me your high minded finger-wagging and tsking over squandered goodwill. bill clinton slaughtered civilians in the sudan to distract from the semen-stained dress - with tens of thousands of civilians killed in the aftermath due to the destruction of their one source of pharmaceuticals. worldwide outrage to that? practically none. because bill, being a democrat, could do no wrong in the eyes of the european union.



it's a double standard. if the president is a democrat, condemnation for bad acts is spoken in a small voice, and quickly forgotten in the press. if the president is a republican, it's lucifer at work.

[anastrophe]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wir ... id=2273774



but really - isn't it best to just pretend that these radical, extreme zealots who would dance in the streets in jubilation if iran lobbed a nuclear bomb at israel, so that they could begin the resurrection of the caliphate free of the stain of the jews in 'their' land, and begin the forcible imposition of (totalitarian) shar'ia law on all - don't exist?



life is much prettier if we just wish away the islamofascists. let's find a prettier euphemism - i know, let's call them "Party of God". oh darn - that's already in use - that's what Hezbollah means. how about something even more benign - how about simply "The Foundation". that's nice and neutral sounding. oh darn - that's what Al Qaeda means.



i'm sure spot will think of something.

[spot]

Along with most Americans you seem unable to grasp that the world at large sees no variation whatever between what you describe as your political parties. Call them what you will, they behave as Americans. What your current administration is doing is an entirely different matter to anything that has gone before.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: Along with most Americans you seem unable to grasp that the world at large sees no variation whatever between what you describe as your political parties. Call them what you will, they behave as Americans. What your current administration is doing is an entirely different matter to anything that has gone before.


you have a remarkable ability to discern what the world at large sees or doesn't see. the example i provided should be instructive - but because it doesn't fit *your* world view, you can't even see that.

[spot]

I suggest you travel for a few years and discover for yourself what you've not been told.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: I suggest you travel for a few years and discover for yourself what you've not been told.


i intend to. unfortunately, i'm not affluent enough to afford any travel at all. perhaps if i'm lucky, i'll catch affluenza.

[spot]

You don't recognize the distinction between a sufficiency and an excess? A sufficiency is laudable, an excess is disgusting. Affluenza relates solely to excess. The word relates to a commonality of symptoms, not to a mechanism of transmission. In the case of affluenza, transmission is propagated by advertising, peer pressure, example, a lack of self-restraint and, above all else, sheer bad taste on the part of the sufferer. It's an aspect of the variation in societies that so many people huddled into one corner of the world can regard personal or group excess as a worthwhile objective in life.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: You don't recognize the distinction between a sufficiency and an excess? A sufficiency is laudable, an excess is disgusting. Affluenza relates solely to excess. The word relates to a commonality of symptoms, not to a mechanism of transmission. In the case of affluenza, transmission is propagated by advertising, peer pressure, example, a lack of self-restraint and, above all else, sheer bad taste on the part of the sufferer. It's an aspect of the variation in societies that so many people huddled into one corner of the world can regard personal or group excess as a worthwhile objective in life.


you don't recognize a sardonic comment when it smacks you in the face, do you?

[spot]

I've been told, by my familiars, that I'm quite capable of such perception. You must consider whether the fault lies closer to home.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: I've been told, by my familiars, that I'm quite capable of such perception. You must consider whether the fault lies closer to home.


i see we've both now devolved to the koan school of discourse, which polluted this topic rather well immediately preceding your entry.



it was going well there for a bit - some actual content to debate. oh well.

[koan]

You can never get enough of what you don't need to make you happy. ~Eric Hoffer

[koan]

One of the claimed success stories of Nonviolent action

The MST, Land Reform, and Brazilian Democracy (Brazilian Landless Worker's Movement)

Since 1985 the MST has been organising Brazil's rural poor to include them in the economic and political life of the nation. During the past six years the MST has organised 151,427 landless families for the occupation of well over 21 million hectares of idle land. Operating on a shoestring budget and despite Government repression the Landless Workers Movement now organises more landless families to occupy and produce on idle farmland than the Government's land reform measures. Landless workers are carrying out land reform from below and thus challenging the Brazilian élite's domination of so-called democratic rule. Gilmar Mauro of the MST's National Directorate explains the role of the movement:

"There is a great and urgent need to restructure Brazil's land tenure system in order to guarantee access to land, promote equitable social and economic development, and insure the citizenship of the rural population. We believe that our struggle for land reform, occupying and cultivating large tracts of idle farmlands, democratises access to land as well as to our society and government".

The MST offers the rural poor an alternative, ensuring their welfare and participation in economic development and democracy. The MST is providing health care and education to landless families. The MST's National Confederation of Brazilian Land Reform Co-operatives is providing agricultural extension services. They assist in organising production and facilitate marketing the surplus produce of the MST's squatter settlements. This has transformed MST land occupations into productive agricultural co-operatives providing ample food, cash income, and basic services for thousands of member families. Moreover, this social movement has created small industries among the most advanced co-operatives, including a clothing factory in Rio Grande do Sul, a tea processing plant in Parana, and a dairy processing operation in Santa Catarina.

The MST's alternative rural development strategy is challenging the political and policy limitations of the Cardoso government by providing a more just and productive alternative to the dominant system's preferential austerity for the poor.

[chonsigirl]

Koan, may I ask what is their definition for idle land?

The land lived on by the indigenous peoples in the interior? The jungle?

I thought since you had a link for this, maybe there was some elaboration on that. Thank you so much.

[koan]

chonsigirl wrote: Koan, may I ask what is their definition for idle land?

The land lived on by the indigenous peoples in the interior? The jungle?

I thought since you had a link for this, maybe there was some elaboration on that. Thank you so much.


Of course you can ask. I'm just looking into it re claimed successes. I don't know the full details.

I got it from http://mettacenter.org/gl/article.php?s ... essStories

which definitely has an interest in only reporting successes. I'm searching for other references to see if it was a real success or not.

[koan]

Before occupation the Fazenda São Joaquim (2.835 hectares) in the municipality of Teixeira Soares, Paraná, had 1 family, no crops, 2 horses, 10 acres of pasture. The owners were absentees and lived in Curitiba. After the occupation by landless peasants and without receiving any help from the government, 107 families now live on the fazenda. In 1994 they produced 20,000 sacks of corn, 1.100 sacks of beans, 600 sacks of rice. At present they have 530 cows, 600 pigs and 80 sheep while 30 houses, a primary school and a health centre have been built. Through hard work, determination and with the chief aims in mind these ex-landless peasants have organized themselves and achieved a "miracle".


source

[koan]

same source:

Since there is no true government policy for land reform, the process is long and extenuating for the almost starving families waiting for land to plant their crops and escape from misery. The process is as follows:

1. - INCRA (National Institute of Colonization and Land Reform) experts visit the fazenda to verify whether it is productive or not.

2. - If it is improductive, INCRA sends a report to Brasilia to divest the owner of the property and to compensate him with a just sum of money.

3. - If divestment is decided, a presidential decree is published and the evaluation of the property in money is made.

4. - The process is sent to Treasury and the Federal Justice decrees on divestment of property. A socially-minded judge will give a quick solution to the question. However, intentionally, it takes some three to four months for a court to decide estimates. At this stage, difference in price between the court and the owner is the main obstacle.

It has to be borne in mind that:

1. some fazenda owners do not have a true document of property;

2. some owners may have borrowed money from the government in recent years for agricultural purposes and then used the money for speculative investments and not for crops;

3. unbelievable extensions of land have remained unproductive because the owner only wanted the property for speculative aims and/or as a mortage and pledge for debts;

4. practically, the owners never paid any income tax on this property, forfeiting the government of cash to be used for social purposes;

5. improvements on the fazenda consisted of hedges, houses for henchmen and barns for which the owner asks hundreds of thousands of dollars as a compensation.

[chonsigirl]

The METTA link is quite interesting, very good examples of non-violent movements. Although the second link shows there is conflict over the area of Brazil-mostly on the part of the large estate owners, with the landless peasants fighting back when necessary to defend their newly claimed land. It sounds like self-defense from the figures on the site. But it does list the numbers of assassinations, so I would consider this a violent response from large estate owners to the land reform movement. The peasant population is trying to break up the “monopoly of land by the large estate owners. There may have been a non-violent takeover of these large estates, but violence did occur afterwards, on both sides.

The second link is quite disturbing.

“The Brazilian Land Atlas of 1996 reveals that 62% of the land is unproductive. The greatest concentration of unproductive land is in the North and Northeast of Brazil with 79% and 69% respectively. Brazil doesn´t lack the necessary land for its agrarian reform. Many unproductive estates may be distributed to its landless peasants.

Those lands are unclaimed under any form of land title, and are the jungles and areas where the indigenous peoples live.

Current laws for the indigenous peoples of Brazil:

http://www.socioambiental.org/pib/engli ... ation.shtm

It is a long and lengthy process in Brazil to recognize native land territories and protection of their areas. And it seems they can be changed quite easily, at the whims of current government policy.

I put this in, since Portuguese law differs from Spanish law, that protected native land rights. Of course, these laws have been ignored and changed over the last centuries in direct defiance of established treaties between nations. My one example I will give-and if it is off topic then please return to your discourse, is the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848, at the end of the Mexican War. Articles 8 and 9 established the rights of all Mexican citizens living within these territories to retain their land possessions and their rights as citizens that would then transfer over to the United States. The Native Peoples had already been recognized as citizens under the Plan of Iguala and Treaty of Cordova. When the various states formed and were admitted to the United States, these treaty points were ignored and land title lost to the Native Americans. Current Supreme Court cases still dispute these facts today, and do not recognize original treaty rights for Native peoples under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

[koan]

As a proof, the increasing number of conflicts in the rural areas is astonishing. While in 1991 there were 453 conflicts with 54 murders of peasants, in 1995 the number of conflicts rose to 554 with 41 assassinations. The year 1996 became notorious especially with an increase in assassinations, principally the terrible massacre of 19 landless peasants in Eldorado dos Carajás in the state of Pará on the 17 April 1996.


This must be the part you meant about assassinations.

It is strange wording because assassination makes one think of a political leader being killed not peasants. It refers to the killing of the nonviolent peasants though.

Nonviolent action results in deaths of the people taking action, like the massacres that have happened at demonstrations. The nonviolence refers to the people rebelling. That they are killed by the enemy doesn't change the nature of their rebellion. The whole point is to not react to violence with violence but it would be a lie to say that nonviolence won't be met with violence. It's just one sided. For this reason it is easier to say "use nonviolence" than it is to actually do it. But...If this tactic is proving successful I think it should be announced a little louder.

Another example given on METTA is the Civil Rights Movement in the US.