A large number of nations and companies with economic interests in Burma are defending their moral position. If they were not there, they say, others would take their place (and in some cases they declare this would make the situation worse). If this is indeed the case, we should support them. However, for organisations that are supposedly doing good, they are suspiciously quiet on the matter. Are these organisations negotiating more rights for their workers? Are they offering them pay above the poverty line? Are they protecting them from the fear of persecution, rape or execution?

What exactly are they doing?

If a government or company is doing good in Burma or any other oppressed company then I think they should be proud of that, and report on their effect. Label me a naysayer, but I have a feeling their silence isn’t about modesty.

Silence, or statements that are spun into effective silence, are no longer good enough.

In this 21st century, the first world populace no longer has an excuse to be ignorant. It is our duty to learn the effects of our consumption, and to hold each other to a higher standard.

I am as guilty as anyone of sitting back, and being idle.

And most of you are are guilty of letting me.

Is it better to put pressure on a corrupt ruler through sanctions, or to continue doing business for the good of the common people?

Not only is China receiving pressure to impose sanctions on Burma, but individual companies dealing with Burma are also being put under pressure. The Independent reports:

Paris, and the company, argue that Total’s presence is, on the whole, a force for good. Withdrawal would allow carte blanche for Chinese or other companies which would be “less respectful of ethical issues”.

“Our departure would threaten a worsening of the situation for the (Burmese) population,” Total said ina communiqué.

But if this is true, why are they also urging a freeze on new investments in the area? From the same article:

President Nicolas Sarkozy has also drawn criticism this week for urging French companies to “freeze” new investments in Burma. No other French company operates in the country. Total, as the President presumably knew, has not made new investments in Burma for years.

A French diplomat told the newspaper Liberation off the record yesterday: “Annoucing a freeze of what is already frozen is hardly revolutionary. It allows (the president) to surf on the notion of a French ‘new deal’ for human rights, while protecting French economic interests.”

The Australian government is coming under similar criticism:

Greens senator Kerry Nettle said Prime Minister John Howard has rejected trade sanctions against the south-east Asian country because Australia did not “have a lot of trade with Burma”.

“We now find that there is a Liberal Party-linked company that is doing business with the Burmese military regime in oil and gas exploration,” Mr Nettle said.

[...]

Senator Nettle called on Prime Minister John Howard to ask his “Liberal Party friends” to discontinue their investment in Burma until human rights conditions in the country improved.

“For Alexander Downer to say China isn’t taking action (against Burma) because of their trade relationship with Burma, at the same time as his Liberal Party family are making money out of their relationship with the Burmese military dictatorship, is great hypocrisy,” she said.

The arguments for investment in the country are not without merit. However, it is difficult to take them seriously when actions point more towards economic interests back home than the good of the Burmese people.

Politicians have a habit of ruining good arguments with too much spin. The latest report on Bush’s campaign for the Iraq war is a particularly worrying example. Even minor offences of this should be brought to account and challenged.

Straight talking and honest politicians? Almost makes the bid for world peace seem trivial.

World Changing has an article titled ‘How Mobiles and Blogs Don’t — and Do — Help Human Rights‘. The author, Emily Gertz, writes:

In the world of online activism, expectations have not inflated to the level of a few years ago, when a wave of techno-utopian optimism swept the activist ‘net that maybe a “technical intervention,” that is blogging, could stop the mass killings in Darfur — an effort which, on those terms, failed.

I think the mistake here is to believe that one story will suddenly change the world — and if it doesn’t it means failure. Change happens slowly, but each story raises awareness and gets people talking and thinking about it. One particular trait of the Internet over traditional media, is that it is active; and becoming much more so. It’s easy to move from story to story on TV news; with the sport or weather sticking as the last thing in your head. But the way we engage with the Internet (comments, Facebook groups, our own blogs, and even hyperlinks) encourages more of us to actively engage with it.

Meanwhile, globalisation is becoming ever more important; meaning every country that depends on it must think about the economic consequences before doing so.

It is difficult to make solid predictions based on Darfur or other historical events, because so much is different. Although it is a good reminder that we can sometimes get a bit carried away with our optimism.

Heading back into their archives, I also discovered this excellent interview with Ethan Zuckerman from mid-2004, discussing technology and the developing world. A few quotations:

In Ghana in 2000 we had a pretty critical presidential election. The leader who’d taken power in 1979 was stepping down. For the first time an opposition had a chance to stand and there was widespread fear — for good reasons — that there would be election fraud and intimidation.

The coping strategy that everyone came up with was fascinating. It basically involved cellphones and talk radio. What happened is guys would go out to polling places with their cellphones, they’d see someone obstructing access to the polls, and then they’d call a talk radio station and describe what was going on. That put enough pressure on the police that they had to show up and investigate. It proved remarkably effective.

and

It’s pretty hard to expect technology to turn non-democracies into democracies. Where I think technology can make a huge difference is where you have a young and fragile democracy. In those cases, I think what helps is finding ways to empower individuals.

and

It’s corruption when you’re a shopkeeper trying to get your shipment of widgets in and the guy won’t let them through unless you pay him a thousand dollars under the table. But it’s not corruption when you’re a farmer and you’re trying to buy a piece of land and literally no one knows who owns it. That’s just incompetence and bureaucracy and the challenges of dealing with legacy systems. In many developing nations, those challenges are at least as substantial as the problems of corruption.

Well worth a read.

More rough notes.

I received an invitation today to join a group to support the democracy effort in Burma. There are currently 118,461 members. 3 of them are my friends. Of course it’s really easy to join a group, but I think it is noteworthy nonetheless.

The Facebook group lead me to a petition for a boycott of China’s Olympics, should they not support sanctions. This is for UK citizens only, of course. Link. (Elsewhere discussion is surfacing of individual companies who do business in Burma)

Also a video from a Japanese News report showing video of journalist Kenji Nagai being shot. Also look here

And the comments are interesting. Some are wondering if the West should impose military force. The first comment I read was from someone declaring they were against the Iraq War, but considered this might be a good idea. This could so easily fall into a bloody revolution. But I don’t think any country really considers military support to be a good option. Putting aside the problem of spreading troops out too far, I think any arrogance that we can play superhero and make everything better with our super army was laid to rest in Iraq. War is a hard decision to make. It would be long-term and brutal. I honestly think everyone wants to avoid it if at all possible.

But can peaceful diplomatic efforts really help? If we try, we at least learn something.

Personally, I’m leaning towards a boycott of Chinese products and the Olympics if they don’t agree to help. Although that is easier said than done, of course. Their products are everywhere! I have slight doubts about whether this is the right thing to do, but we will see. It can no longer be acceptable to allow any country (including our own) to prop up evil regimes for economic gain. But we must also not be as naive to believe we can just ignore the economic issues or pretend they are unimportant.

A documentary film also surfaced in my look through the Facebook. Here is the trailer. It’s interesting what it takes for people around the world to take notice (including me). I’m aware of many horrible regimes around the world, and yet it takes a special news event to make it a big story and for me to pay particular attention. One reason is surely attention span. My financial concerns, are much more important to me than poverty the other side the of the world (if we are honest, that’s how most of us think, and it’s a pretty sensible way of thinking too). But another reason may be that we simply don’t know what to do when we learn of these issues. We don’t know how to solve them.

But at least we are paying attention and trying. That is significant progress, even if it may not seem that way.

Meanwhile my RSS lead me to read that there was actually an excuse for the Internet going down in Burma:

Internet cafés have been closed and the state ISP is claiming that a damaged cable has led to a total internet shutdown across the country.

Right then.

Finally, the Guardian has a good write-up on the current state of Burma and a little of its history. You can read that here.

I’ve read blog comments that describe the extent of the brutality as far worse than what has been confirmed. There is no way to know how accurate these reports are, so I’m a little unsure what to make of them.

I keep coming across interesting reports. Further to news that the junta military have cut off Internet access, it seems that they are taking much more of a proactive response to technology and the press.

From The Age:

Meanwhile, Government pressure and unresthas forced several of Burma’s private newspapers to stop publishing, an industry leader said today.

“Some publications may have been forced to close down because they refused to carry the government’s propaganda,” he said on condition of anonymity.

Censors in Burma, also known as Myanmar, always exert tight controls over the media to limit their reporting, but pressure has become unusually high.

People found with mobile phones or cameras were beaten by soldiers yesterday, witnesses said, while a Japanese photojournalist died after being shot.

The newspapers were also struggling to operate because unrest in the streets over the last two days made it impossible for vendors to sell papers, the source added.

“Their people can’t get out there selling them because of the problems,” he said.

Four weekly newspapers printed by the Eleven Media group, two weeklies by Yangon Media, and three weeklies titled Kamudra, Voice and Market have all stopped publishing, he said.

Another newspaper group, Pyi Myanmar, was planing to completely shut down, he added.

The Myanmar Times newspaper indicated it would continue publishing.

Somewhat of a tug-on-your-heartstrings production, but a rather nice first introduction to the crisis and to Auug San Suu Kyi. And a reminder for all those who already recognise her name. It may not seem like it will do much, but it is important for us all to learn her name. It will help us talk about it.

This is not just about Burma. If we can have some success here, it will be a story we can use to peacefully fight human violations around the world. But right now we are learning. Let’s see if we can make this the story we contrast with Iraq.

From Ko Htike’s blog:

Dear All,

I sadly announce that the Burmese military junta has cut off the internet connection throughout the country. I therefore would not be able to feed in pictures of the brutality by the brutal Burmese military junta.

I will also try my best to feed in their demonic appetite of fear and paranoia by posting any pictures that I receive though other means (Journos!! please don’t ask me what other means would be??). I will continue to live with the motto that “if there is a will there is a way”.

We probably need to lobby the Chinese government or UN envoy to Burma to ask the junta to switch on the Internet. Please!

This was inevitable, unfortunately. It will be interesting to see how much news can still get out. People can still record and document, and I’m sure it will get communicated eventually. But how quickly? And how much will it matter overall?

No talk of military help, but plenty on the use of sanctions and boycotts.

China is receiving the majority of calls from around the world to impose sanctions, but will they?

From The Age’s article ‘China under pressure to rein in Burma‘

CHINA’S leaders are finding that dealing with the uprising by Burma’s red-robed monks may be an even bigger dilemma than responding to the North Korean nuclear crisis.

As the six-party talks to dismantle Kim Jong-il’s nuclear ambitions resumed in the capital yesterday, China found itself flooded with fresh calls for it to use its influence with another pariah client state.

In response, China yesterday for the first time called on all parties in Burma to exercise restraint as it struggled to craft a response to the popular uprising on its doorstep. It is caught between its ambitions to be accepted as a responsible world power and uncomfortable parallels that could be drawn with its own political situation.

A fascinating development of the modern age is the influence of globalisation on the political motives of individual nations. Could globalisation bring peace to the world? From the same article:

When North Korea tested a nuclear bomb in defiance of China’s overt warnings and those of the international community, China finally used its influence to bring Pyongyang back to the negotiating table. When outrage over China’s support for the Sudanese Government, which is implicated in the continuing carnage in Darfur, began eroding Beijing’s image as an international peacemaker, Beijing also acted decisively, persuading Sudan to accept a UN peace plan.

Economy vs. Human Rights. While the economy of China is growing, enough Chinese are living in poverty still that the economy is a human rights issue in itself. Deals between Burma and China are important for both countries and so China has a huge conflict of interest. This from The Independent:

According to some reports, senior Beijing figures have been talking to the generals and the opposition but China cannot risk its strategic goals of using the country to secure oil and gas supplies. Burmese opposition figures said the Chinese authorities had been hedging their bets in case the regime was toppled by the protests that started this summer.

China has lent a lot of money to the Burmese for infrastructure projects, much as it has in Africa. Beijing is keen to secure a key role in the Shwe offshore gasfields near Sittwe, ahead of India which is also bidding for Shwe’s natural gas. The Chinese are also involved in dam-building projects and oil pipelines.

Campaigners say China and India are crucial in propping up the regime and that Western sanctions have little impact while these two regional powers continue to battle over Burma’s resources. This week India, pursuing its “Look East” policy, signed a $150m (£75m) exploration deal to explore for some of Burma’s offshore gas. India has also been involved in training the Burmese armed forces in an effort to clamp down on militants located on its eastern border.

The Burma rulers need China and India desperately. Michale Gerson of the Washington Post writes:

After the pointless construction of a new capital in a remote part of the country and the building of luxury housing for the military elite, Burma’s government is cash-strapped.

[...]

While the upper ranks of the Burmese military are well taken care of, the lower ranks often scramble for basic necessities. The Burmese guards outside the U.S. Embassy in Rangoon, according to one U.S. official, are currently getting by on a single meal a day.

But how much does China and India need Burma and similar countries? Gerson continues:

While Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorists, China has become the leading state sponsor of common thugs, from Burma to Sudan to Zimbabwe. It has positioned itself as a great power without the pesky complication of conscience, willing to court and support any dictator who supplies a tribute of natural resources. At the same time, it has invited moral scrutiny by hosting the 2008 Olympics. China will either begin acting more responsibly in Burma and elsewhere — abandoning its stated policy of “noninterference” — or the Summer Games will become the focus of human rights complaints about every one of its brutal clients in the world.

The pressure is on and eyes are watching every move of the Chinese government. There appears to be a global wave of public dissatisfaction with human rights abuses on an international stage. This is not civilised countries vs. uncivilised countries. Note the protests of Iraq (a much less clear cut situation) and how much scrutiny America and Britain have been put under by each government’s own people. It is a complicated moral and political situation because few countries have a clean record.

It will be fascinating to see whether international pressure can bring harmony to a country (perhaps even democracy). If it does it will provide a strong political argument against future wars such as those in Iraq. If not then war may continue to be our only choice for more years to come. In my mind this is potentially a historic turning point. But currently it only has the potential.

I don’t want to comment too much on the ongoing story at the moment, but I do wish to document a few things… for study later.

First a video (which I really need to work out how to download):

From the comments:

pirejknf:

Anyone that can translate what they are singing?

maungchitmin:

First they are chanting Buddhist prayer saying

“May all countless beings who lived in the [East, West, South, North... and all ten directions]
be free from all danger,
be free from all anger,
be free from all poverty,
be ease at hearts.”

Then They shouted General (Aung San)’s military train is not for killing citizens.

Then they sang Burmese national anthem.

When soldiers start shooting, they shouted “run.. run”

soulthomas:

the meanings what they are shouting in this vedio..

1. Buddish wishes for all human beings from all places ‘May they all be in safety, may they all be in peace, may they all be in good health, may they all are well and happy’

2. ‘Army built by Bogyoke AungSan (father of AungSanSuuKyi) is not to kill our monks and our people!!!!’

3. they Sung the original country song.

>>sorry my english is not good enough.

Plz Help Burma.. Innocent monks and people are getting died.

This is an attempt to put a lot of thoughts together. Hopefully I will find time to come back to it, redraft it, improve it. If not, I already understand my argument a little better. Take it for what it is. Or do not take it at all. But at least I’m trying to understand.

In 1995 I visited the USA. It was incredibly exciting. My family and I went to Florida; saw the magical kingdom of Mickey Mouse, a space station, crocodiles, manatees and hours of sunshine. When it was time to leave, I wasn’t ready. The whole place seemed like a magical kingdom to me. I was eager to return and see the rest of the country. California, New York, the White House. Skyscrapers! Grand canyons. My return was utmost in my mind for years afterwards.

But recently the idea has dulled. The country still appeals to me. I really would like to visit New York, even though I’m really not a city person. And there are all those people I’d like to meet whom I only know over the Internet. But I really don’t want to go there right now. I’ve been put off.

I’m not sure if reality is as bad as the stories I’ve heard. But one point of this essay is that stories are more important than we sometimes give them credit for. If I believe I’m going to be ripped to shreds when I pass through customs at the U.S. airports, that’s enough to stop me going. If the prevailing story is a negative one, then I figure the best I’m going to be greeted with is a stern look and a disgruntled cough. That’s not the image of America I want to remember. Why are they trying to spoil my memories?

First impressions count and whatever impression they give me, is the one I’m going to be thinking about for my entire trip. I want a ‘welcome to the U.S.A’ and an ‘enjoy your stay’ and I want it from the security guards, damn it. We humans remember well what happens first; it’s called the primacy effect. And we remember what happens last; it’s called the recency effect. We remember some things in between, but we remember the first and last bits particularly. For most visitors to a country, this means airports. So if the U.S. wants to leave a good impression, they better get their airports right.

If you think heightened security (which is mostly security-theatre) and a look of distrust is a good thing for your country, you are mistaken. Do what is necessary, do what you must, but do no more. Security always has negative effects; so don’t overdo it. Always question its necessity. Every step you take beyond what is necessary will bring about a negative reaction.

Some parents believe that it is their right to look through their children’s bags, search their cupboards, read their diaries. In reality, it demonstrates a lack of respect and trust, and it is a terrible constraint on a child. If you know your parents are reading your diary, the audience changes. Maybe you constrain yourself and the diary become fruitless. Or perhaps you rebel against mistrust and start giving your parents what they’re looking for. But when you write for an audience who is uninvited, the chances of writing anything profound or particularly introspective disappears. The children know that if they write something that reveals their raw soul, an insensitive audience can utterly destroy it.

Privacy and trust is important. If we have it and lose it, we want it back more than anything in the world. If we never have it, we can never know its value. When a State mistrusts its people, it creates that self-fulfilling prophecy. Why do you think so many people think it is morally correct to download music and film that they haven’t paid for? Why do so many people think it okay to speed when they know there are no cameras to catch them? Why do people believe it is okay to talk in the cinema when there are no ushers to shine their torch of disapproval? Nanny us, and we will never grow up. Impose the law everywhere and it becomes meaningless. I’m guilty and so are you.

But my apologise to the USA. I pick on them not because they are an exception, but rather because they are a prominent example. And most importantly because I do not live there. This is an outsider’s view. When once the story of America appealed to my sense of migration, now it discourages me. Things change, and it is a loss of those fundamental ideals of freedom that has done so. I respect the need to detach from British rule, but it upsets me that they are essentially now a clone of us. Or us of them. Or both of us of each other.

Yes, England and America are not too dissimilar. Perhaps not surprising if you consider globalisation, but I rather hoped that the value of freedom would be the commonality we prided. Instead we are both losing it.

England fought for freedom too of course. I guess we all do. Round in circles it goes.

It’s just a shame that we can’t see when we slowly lose it again. Will the inevitable fight have to happen so we can regain it? Do we have to travel that far before we realise we’ve made a terrible navigational error. The chance never crossed my mind until I strode into my 20s.

When I was in primary school, I remember visiting some of the old WWI trenches in France. My school chums and I were young and so we played in them. We played soldiers. Ran around in the grass, shooting each other with imaginary guns. It was fun. Kids playing. We didn’t think of them as killing fields. When you are so young, I don’t think you can.

As I grow older, those killing fields seem closer and closer to reality. I’m 25. Four of my lifetimes ago, and I would have been there. Less than that and I would have been involved in WWII. As I grow older and learn more of how lucky I am to be born not only in this time but also this country, I find these thoughts sobering. I’m lucky to be here, and the thought of us throwing that away stirs something. Last November 11th, when the country stopped for a moments silence to remember our brave soldiers, I silently cried for over half an hour. I only stopped from exhaustion. Somehow, it’s all becoming more real to me and more emotional with it. I rarely cry, but the passion has stayed with me and I use it to give me energy. The memory matters.

A few weeks back I was listening to talk radio. They were discussing a hair-brained judge’s idea to take DNA swabs from tourists to add to a huge DNA database of everyone in the country. It feels like science-fiction. I think some people read 1984 and think to themselves: ‘now that’s a good idea’. One elderly gentleman emailed the show. A man who had the importance of freedom engraved in his memory and a mnemonic cast in his arm. He drew the comparison between the database and the tattoo the Nazi’s planted on him in the 1940s. The presenter responded with heartfelt, but declared how different this situation was and how the comparison was not just. The show continued.

Somehow many of us have it in our head that comparing anything now to the horrors of WWII is somehow inane. But I have a funny feeling that one reason we read history is so we can learn from the mistakes of our ancestors.

Major mistake of that past era? Denial. Example: when the Nazi’s invaded Holland they did something very clever. They did very little. Everybody had a belief that it would be traumatic when they invaded, but it wasn’t. They won the trust of the people, kept a presence on the streets that made everyone feel safe and were even friendly to the Jews. Things didn’t really seem all that bad and it became easier to ignore the odd story and enjoy the benefits of going with that Nazi flow.

By the time they started using hand-grenades as a protest calming measure, it was too late.

I don’t believe we are anywhere near that threat, but denial and an unwillingness to discuss the similarities does scare the hell out of me. Remember that there are members of the racist British National Party in our local governments. People of this country voted them in. You really don’t need a grand imagination to draw comparisons.

Each and every one of us could make the same mistakes more easily than we can imagine or dare to admit. Being aware of that, I believe, is our greatest chance to not fall into that trap. We should take these things seriously. Look inside and admit that there are moral weaknesses inside us; we have a duty to find them and mend what we can. It might be fear. It might just be a desire to walk on by. Or a belief in our common sense even when the common sense of others also feels right to them.

It doesn’t matter how relatively good things are in the here and now. The subject is serious enough that even minor steps in the wrong direction should be heeded.

When Nanny State says she will look after you and make everything okay, this is one of the most dangerous beliefs you can fall for. It will make you weak. It will stop your questioning. It will take over your caring.

Another similarity to that painful era in the mid 1900s is the willingness to accept any measure if it promises to solve a major problem. Whether it be major issues with the economy or crime, a solution is a solution. In desperation we accept anything without really listening to its merits. Today people are fearful of crime in this country, fed up with insolent teenagers, worried about the levels of immigration, annoyed by the many people taking unfair advantage of unemployment benefits and terrified of terrorism. A database will sort this out (we are told) and so we accept it. Identity cards will slow illegal immigration, solve crimes and stop terrorism; and what fool wouldn’t want that? Minor inconveniences are worth it for our safety.

And yet, there is no proof that it will help and plenty that it will cause problems. Financial and administrative ones for starters. Billions of British pounds going into a scheme that doesn’t add value and hurts the economy. And noise: false positives showing up all over the place. Oh, and a database of invaluable information that cannot be made hack proof or flaw proof or human error proof. Or government proof.

And it’s easy to forget that when yesterday you said you’d like more police on the street, or perhaps more prisons; you can’t have them now. The government does not have unlimited pots of money. It might seem like it, but they really don’t. Money spent on DNA databases or ID cards, is money taken from something more important.

If you are fine with this because ‘you have nothing to hide’ then you are simply missing the point. Sure I could retort this argument by talking again about how trust and privacy is important, but it is a difficult argument to make, and it is best to debate the arguments above which are a lot clearer.

Most of all, why are we keen to impose controversial schemes at the expanse of schemes we know will work?

In this case some sense prevails and an ignorant judges opinion doesn’t matter when the government deny any possibility of this database happening. But still, there is a worrying number of people that think this is a good idea. And, of course, we can hardly deny that we are increasingly becoming a Big Brother state. We just start arguing that is a good thing.

Whether you personally trust the government’s declaration that Britain’s crime is dropping or not, the perception certainly exists; and again perception matters. The story is important.

A disturbing meme has cast itself over this nation that says “don’t bother calling the police, they won’t do anything”. I’ve even heard police officers say it. But I was particularly upset when the victim of an attempted mugging (my friends and I frightened them off) decided to walk straight passed the police station just moments after the incident. “They won’t do anything,” he said.

And so the crime figures continued to drop.

Our nearly mugged friend was the victim of unruly teenagers. Our unaffectionate name for them is chavs. They are the kind of kids you’d think are every parent’s nightmare; except many of them are parents themselves. Some are just idiots. Some of them just like to disturb the peace. Some are criminals. And more occasionally than is acceptable, some end up killers.

Britain has a growing problem with youth crime, social disobedience and a disturbing trend to gun crime too. Sometimes I listen to talk radio and the common public sense seems correct to me. Build more prisons. Put more police on the streets. Yes, the British public get it. Thank God for that.

So why on one day do they argue that the problem is that the police don’t show up when we call them; the next that we need to give the police more power. The same red tape that holds them inside their offices writing reports, is the same centralised control that will bring us ID cards. Giving them more power doesn’t mean they have more power to solve crimes; it means they have less. You won’t learn this in schools. Who do you think provides the National Curriculum?

There is something I rather respect about kids who play truant from school. Those who rebel against The Rules. They tend to be the kids who say ‘no’ to a crappy 11 years of schooling and decide they want to be in control of their own damn destinies. Some are lucky, smart or find a role model and make this work for them. We call a good portion of these people ‘entrepreneurs’. Many others, being the uneducated kids that they are, fail in their quest for a better life and instead become the bane of society.

So what’s their problem?

Bad leadership. Not just dysfunctional home life in the sense of abuse, but a complete lack of respect and real guidance from anyone. We believe good leadership is telling kids what to do and them obeying. That’s not how it works. Not if you don’t have a stick to beat them back.

Bad leadership. And now it’s hitting it’s second generational wave; losers leading losers.

We disrespect kids. We say ‘you are not ready to do anything important. You have to study for eleven years before you can even consider using any of it. Then, don’t believe that’s going to be anything important unless you study another 3 years or more.’ What’s it like arriving at High School at eleven years of age and knowing you have another eleven years until you can do anything useful? That’s another lifetime studying. And what use will all this be eventually? Kid’s ask this question all the time. I asked it. The teachers almost never knew the answer.

I don’t believe you can have any self-worth unless you’re contributing in some way now. Feedback that what you are learning matters. An understanding that what you do can have a positive impact on your life and the lives of others. A concept of how learning can be turned into power. What it means to have responsibility or achieve a dream and what it means to pursue that with some success.

Kids need guidance. Mentors. What they don’t need is to be locked up in a classroom all day and told exactly what to read and when to read it.

The 20th century was one of industry where workers were forced into obedience in the name of efficient, robotic workmanship. Now that we have reached this new century we have electronic robots to do much of this menial work instead. Beating obedience into kids is no longer going to produce useful workers. We understood this and outlawed beating. But we never replaced it with anything useful.

Teenagers, remember, are a relatively new concept that did not emerge until the latter half of the 20th Century. Before that, they were considered young adults. For some reason we believe its a good thing to keep children in their Peter Pan state for as long as possible. When I was a pre-teen I used to dream of being 18 and being an adult. When I turned 18 I realised I wasn’t one.

I should have been. Let’s stop believing it is morally right to extend childhood. Mine lasted too long and now I feel like I’ve wasted too much time. The faster children have the opportunity to be treated as adults, the sooner they will act like them.

Today, even adults are treated as children.

If you want the freedom to be an adult, you have to fight for it.