torsdag 12 september 2013

First world issues? Do they exist?


In Sweden there's an expression "i-landsproblem". The expression or reference is often used when we  who live in the first world, the privileged  world talk about our petty problems or our petty complaints. For example it could be that you are irritated of the mail man that didn't deliver your beloved trousers that you ordered from H&M the other day and this has just ruined your whole week. That's an "i-landsproblem"! 
There are lots of examples of these types of problems that exists in most of our first world societies today. Compared to problems that exists in other parts of the world, that is just silly. I mean some people are just happy that they made it to see another day! However, there is a change in this trend that I can see..the "i-landsproblem" have become real problems, infact one can talk about warfare..
Of course I'm referring to the U.S. 
Read this article and you'll understand a portion of what I am trying to say. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/us/rate-of-killings-rises-38-percent-in-chicago-in-12.html?pagewanted=all
The problem is just growing. For example, the article states that rates of homicides that includes rape, robbery and burglairies, not to mention shootings killing people have increased by 10%.  It might not be a declared war between contry A and B, but there's a serious problem of gang related violence. The environment described as I said is not declared war between A and B but it's definitely a war environment. Children are growing up in war environments in the U.S. Does this mean that they will grow up to have similar psychological damages as people who have grown up in "real " war times? I think so. Maybe not exactly the same but it's possible that it woul be very similar. Imagine growing up in a place where killings, shootings and violence against people are normal and just an everyday thing. Would you be fully functioning without psychlogical damages? I know I wouldn't. So why isn't anything more concrete being done? I mean this is not a situation where one state needs to check if they have the right to intervene. There is no issue of sovereignty involved here. Or is this not important enough?
Recent articles show an escalation of the problem so why aren't humanitarian organizations engaged in these types of problems? Maybe because the U.S is a country capable of many things so of course this could be stopped and of course they should be able to handle this. They put in military forces when they felt like the Black Panthers where out of control. But maybe empowerment of Blacks is not very desireable. If we rise, we'll be resisted. If we destroy ourselves, we'll be encouraged. Is that the case? I want to think that times have changed and that it no longer is like that or similarly like that. But as I have said in recent posts, just because you change a law does not mean that mindsets do. Which in turn slows down any type of developmental or empowering process.
This picture says so much. I found it in an article about the Black Panthers on this website:
http://www.nola.com/175years/index.ssf/2011/12/1971_black_panthers_acquitted.html