Friday, December 11, 2020

Colonial Occupations in Early American History

Lost Professions and Skills From the Founding of the United States

Aug 29, 2009

Colonial Era occupations were interesting and unique, focusing on skilled trades necessary in the creation of a society that worked toward prosperity and consumerism.

Everyday colonial American life included many occupations that are lost to post-modern Americans living in the 21-Century. These occupations, within the greater scope of daily living, are recreated at places like Plymouth Plantation and Old Sturbridge Village in Massachusetts, Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia, and Old Salem in Winston Salem, NC. Yet most Americans would be hard pressed to recognize some common and some not so common occupations during the Colonial Era.

Colonial Occupations that Disappeared in the Modern World

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s poem “The Village Backsmith” begins with the line, “Under a spreading chestnut tree the village smithy stands…” Longfellow’s poem, written in the 19th-Century, refers romantically to an earlier period when colonial Americans identified with villages. A “Smith” or smithy was a skilled worker in metals. He could be a whitesmith, another term for tinsmith, a coppersmith, jewel smith, or a blacksmith.

The “Scrivener” or conveyancer was a writer of contracts or professional scribe. Another term employed for this occupation was that of “Penman,” from which the modern term penmanship is derived. Scrivener as a defined term dates to the 14th century to denote a scribe.

Early colonial ship manifests, notably from the 17th Century, list the occupation of passengers conveyed from England to the American colonies. Many of these occupations included that of “husbandman.” The husbandman was a farmer and denoted the status as head of the family. The “patriarchal” allusion is not without precedent. The term is traced to old Latin and refers to a settler in a new land, specifically a colony.

The colonial occupation “Chirugeon” comes from the Latin chirurgia meaning surgeon. During the Renaissance, the term was resurrected from the Greek spelling and used universally in the colonial period.

Other Unique Occupations in Colonial America

Cordwainer: a shoemaker. Derived from the French cordovan and referring specifically to leather from Cordoba, Spain
Crimp: an agent of a shipping company but more specifically one who recruits men to work on ships
Ganymede: a servant boy, most likely an indentured servant; the term is derived from the Greek, referring to a Trojan youth made cup bearer to Zeus
Picaroon: used to refer to either a pirate or a pirate’s ship
Lorimer: a worker who made bits for horse’s bridles
Fellmonger: a dealer in skins or animal hides; the term monger is a general term found in Old English to denote one who deals or trades
Joiner or Joyner: a skilled craftsman who created ornamental wood working although also used to denote a maker of cabinets

Skilled Crafts and Lost Arts

Unlike most men of the colonial period, modern and post-modern males have no more use for wigs, although the toupee still hides baldness. Wigmakers or “peruke-makers” went out of business in the early 19th Century. Today, people use the term “blockhead” to refer to an idiot yet it derives from the wooden models used by wig-makers to fashion their creations.

Contemporary Americans no longer await the visit of a Tinker to mend kettles, pots, or pans. Old kitchen items are trashed. Yet during the Colonial Era, such items were costly and the timely arrival of the surly Tinker helped to preserve an investment.

After describing the long, hard work hours of the village smithy, Longfellow concludes with the line, “Something attempted, something done, has earned a night’s repose.” Colonial occupations prospered because of the so-called Puritan or Protestant “work ethic.” Like Longfellow’s smithy, this culminated in a well deserved night’s sleep. Colonial occupations represented hard work, yet left a sense of satisfaction and completion.

Sources:

Peter Beney, The Majesty of Colonial Williamsburg (Pelican Publishing Company, 2002)
David Freeman Hawke, Everyday Life in Early America (Harper & Row, 1988)
Richard M. Lederer, Jr., Colonial American English (Essex, Conn.: Verbatim Books, 1985)
Colonial Williamsburg Journal (on-line edition)
Etymology Dictionary (on-line)

The copyright of the article Colonial Occupations in Early American History in Colonial America is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Colonial Occupations in Early American History in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

The Nullification Crisis of 1832

Idealogical Differences over Constitutional Interpretation

Aug 30, 2009

The Nullification Crisis resulted from federal passage of two protective tariffs, prompting men like John C. Calhoun to assert state sovereignty over federal law.

The concept of nullification is most keenly demonstrated by the tariff controversy in South Carolina during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. Nullification, however, had surfaced earlier in 1798 when Thomas Jefferson attacked the Federalist Alien and Sedition Acts with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. The nature of the nullification debate rested on the interpretation of the Constitution and its relationship to the states. The 1832 crisis was based on two unpopular protective tariffs. Under the ideological leadership of John C. Calhoun, South Carolina nullified the federal acts and threatened to secede if coerced in any way by the central government.

The Coming of the Nullification Crisis

Prior to the crisis emanating out of South Carolina, Georgia had struggled with the federal government as well over Indian policy. Despite pro-Indian rulings by John Marshall, Georgia ignored the government and evicted the Cherokee. It should be noted that President Jackson, unlike his stance over nullification, supported Georgia and sent troops to enforce the relocation of the Native Americans to Oklahoma.

Some scholars point out that Georgia’s success in opposing the federal government might have emboldened South Carolina’s resolve in passing the November 1832 Ordinance of Nullification. It is also true, however, that Southern states did not benefit from protective tariffs. The 1820s had brought a period of economic decline as well as population growth to the region.

As larger plantations flourished with the over-production of cotton in states like Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama, the price of cotton fell. Thus, the 1828 “Tariff of Abominations” and the July 1832 tariff were seen as a direct threat to Southern prosperity. Finally, although Calhoun had supported Henry Clay’s “American System,” the South received scant benefit from federal expenditures.

The Ideological Foundation of Nullification

During the January 1830 Webster-Hayne debate, Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster refuted South Carolina Senator Hayne’s argument that the central government was a mere collection of sovereign states that had been responsible for the creation of the Constitution. Webster argued that the Constitution derived not from the states but from the people. It was the supreme law of the land.

As Chief Justice John Marshall had pointed out in numerous cases involving national supremacy, sovereignty was not concurrent, neither was the Constitution a mere “compact” among the various states. The Founding Fathers had established a working government that recognized limited states’ rights but not at the expense of national supremacy.

Andrew Jackson Responds to Nullification

In his December 10th Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, Jackson made it clear that force would be employed to stop the actions of the South Carolina nullifiers. According to Jackson, disunity was tantamount to treason. The proclamation was followed by a January 1833 request from Congress giving him the authority to end the crisis.

Congress responded with the Force Bill, authorizing a military response, yet also began the process of rewriting the tariff so that protectionism would gradually be eliminated. As historian Page Smith wrote, it was a carrot and stick approach and it worked.

South Carolina was isolated. No other Southern state offered more than token, verbal support and then only from a minority of nullifiers. South Carolina felt compelled to reverse its stance while Andrew Jackson recounted his response in a letter to a friend who was serving as US Minister to Imperial Russia. That man was James Buchanan who, in 1860, would face a similar crisis.

Sources:

Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development 5th Ed., (New York: W.W.Norton & Company, 1976)
Stephen B. Oates, The Approaching Fury: Voices of the Storm, 1820-1861 (Harper/Collins, 1997)
Page Smith, The Nation Comes of Age: A People’s History of the Ante-Bellum Years Vol. 4 (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981)

The copyright of the article The Nullification Crisis of 1832 in American History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish The Nullification Crisis of 1832 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

John C. Calhoun in 1822

Thursday, December 10, 2020

The Armenian Genocide

Turkish Troops Attempt to Obliterate the Armenian People

Michael Streich, March 17, 2010 in Suite101

In the midst of World War One, the first modern genocide took place in Turkey. The Armenian Genocide, commemorated on April 24^th, is vigorously denied by the Turkish government. Although a recent House of Representatives Resolution (H. Res. 106) was passed in committee, the U.S. government has repeatedly referred to the “genocide” as atrocities or massacres. Henri Barkey, a visiting scholar at Lehigh University, however, wrote in the Washington Post that. “…the overwhelming historical evidence demonstrates what took place in 1915 was genocide.” His commentary was reprinted in Ankara’s Hurriyet Daily News on March 3, 2010.

What was the Armenian Genocide?

In 1915 1.5 million Armenians were massacred by the Turks while another million were deported. [1] Turkish actions were meticulously detailed, primarily by American diplomats and missionaries working in Turkey. Professor Peter Balakian, whose 2003 book The Burning Tigris [2] documents the genocide, refers to Turkish actions as “the first modern episode of race extermination…” [3] Balakian recounts the extensive investigations and documentation by U.S. consul Leslie A. Davis and U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau Sr.

Morgenthau’s papers include detailed examples of the genocide and of Turkish responses that labeled the Armenians a “detested race.” Outside Ankara alone over 40,000 Armenians were slaughtered. Balakian recounts Davis’ discoveries at Lake Goeljuk where thousands had been bayoneted and beheaded. Balakian writes that Davis’ account had “an Auschwitz sense about it.” Sections 8-10 of House Resolution 106 reference the U.S. National Archives and the “extensive and thorough documentation on the Armenian Genocide.” [4]

Eyewitness accounts added to U.S. revelations. “Teenage girls were raped with crucifixes made from tree branches…” [5] The Turks used “Mobile killing squads” to depopulated Armenian towns and villages, subjecting the inhabitants to forced marches to places where they would be massacred. Like the later Einsatzgruppen of the Third Reich, they forced their victims to strip before killing them. According to Consul Davis, it was “one of the greatest tragedies in all of history.”

Propaganda and Fanaticism

In the midst of World War I propaganda, the realities of the events in Turkey became obscured. Phillip Knightley writes that several journalists published accounts of the atrocities in The Times, but that “their detailed and damning accusations were lost in the welter of false and exaggerated propaganda of the period.” [6] More recently, Egemen Bagis, Turkey’s Minister for European Affairs stated that “the Ottoman Empire was an ally of the German Reich. Nothing that happened back then happened without consultations with the Germans.” [7]

Similarly, Turkish responses focus on propaganda linked to “the Church, terrorism organizations and fanatic politicians.” “The theme of this propaganda was based on so-called Armenian genocide…” [8] and was designed to instill Tukophobia. Today in Turkey, citizens can be jailed for equating the atrocities as genocide. [9]

United States Humanitarian Efforts

American Protestant denominations sent tens of thousands of dollars for the relief of Armenians. This “Near East Relief” has been compared to the Marshall Plan, enacted by the U.S. Congress after World War II. [10] Balakian values American relief, primarily from individuals, as $1.25 billion based on conversion rates to current valuations.

The Historical Record

The events in Turkey in 1915 clearly indicate “race extermination.” The historical evidence documenting the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians is beyond dispute and has been affirmed by U.S. Congresses and Presidents since Woodrow Wilson – who actually considered committing U.S. troops to the region. H. Res. 106 as well as a recently (though narrowly) passed Swedish Resolution succinctly details what can only be classified as genocide.

Notes:

[1] Peter Balakian, “How a Poet Writes History Without Going Mad,” The Chronicle Review, May 7, 2004, Vol. 50, Issue 35, p B10

[2] Peter Balakian, The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response (HarperCollins, 2003)

[3] Balakian, Chronicle Review

[4] House Resolution 106, 110^th Congress, 1^st Session, Government Printing Office

[5] Balakian

[6] Phillip Knightley, The First Casualty: From the Crimea to Vietnam (Harcourt Brace Janovich, 1975) p 104-105

[7] Bernhard Zand and Daniel Steinvorth, “ Turkish EU Minister on the Armenian Genocide Controversy,” Spiegel Online, March 16, 2010

[8] Dr. Cengiz Kursad, The Massacre (Istanbul Research Center, 1993)

[9] Henri Barkey, “The Armenian genocide resolution is a farce all around,” Hurriyet Daily News, March 3, 2010

[10] Historian Page Smith credits Joseph L. Grabill on page 836, America Enters the War: A People’s History of the Progressive Era and World War I, Vol. 7 (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1985)

*Copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Contact author for permission to republish.

The Presidential Election of 1864

Lincoln is Reelected After Spectacular Union Victories in the South

May 6, 2009 Michael Streich

George McClellan Challenged Lincoln in 1864 - National Archives - Picture in the Public Domain

Although renominated unanimously, Republicans had strong doubts that Abraham Lincoln would be returned to office given the shift in mood among Northern voters.

Two days after the November 8th election in 1864, Abraham Lincoln addressed a group of well-wishers that had come to serenade him. “We can not have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us.” As historian Paul Boller points out, the United States was the first nation ever to hold a general election in the midst of a major war. But the Election of 1864 was not predicted to be a victory for Lincoln.

Turning Points that Assured Lincoln’s Re-Election

By the summer of 1864, the mood toward war in the North was beginning to shift. The lack of major military victories as well as overwhelming casualties threw many into despair. Rumors of regional uprisings in southern Illinois and Missouri, the ever expanding costs of the war, inflation, and continued resistance to the military draft contributed to dissatisfaction and war weariness.

Some Republican leaders suggested that Lincoln step aside and even queried Ulysses Grant on his availability, a notion the general vigorously rejected. Influential leaders like the publisher Horace Greeley turned on Lincoln, viciously criticizing the President’s policy of staying the course. One disaffected faction of Republicans formed the Radical Democracy Party, nominating John C. Fremont.

As the administration faced growing despair over Lincoln’s prospects for reelection, significant military events in the South altered the course of the election:

Admiral David Farragut’s capture of Mobile Bay
General Philip Sheridan’s routing of Jubal Early and the devastation of the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia
General William Sherman’s victory over Confederate General John B. Hood and the burning of Atlanta
General Grant’s progress at Petersburg

The Democrats in the 1864 Election

Calling for an immediate end to hostilities in their party platform, the Democrats nominated George B. McClellan, whose inaction during the Peninsula campaign and later timidity at Antietam resulted in his being relieved of command by Lincoln. McClellan was caught between having to defend a platform he did not agree with and declaring that all heretofore war deaths had been in vain if the party won and forced a negotiated peace.

Results of the Election of 1864

Because of the changing tide of the war, Lincoln felt comfortable in the final weeks before the election. Even Horace Greeley was supporting him. John C. Fremont withdrew from the race and most Northern voters were elated by the news of victory on all fronts.

Abraham Lincoln won the election with 55% of the popular vote versus 45% for McClellan. The electoral vote, however, was more lopsided. Lincoln received 212 electoral votes to McClellan’s 21. Lincoln viewed the election results as a referendum of his conduct of the war, specifically emancipation.

The Republicans had run as the National Unity Party, selecting a Southern Democrat and former slave-holder from Tennessee as vice-president. Andrew Johnson was the only U.S. Senator from the South not to have resigned his office and held strong pro-Union views. He appeared to be the ideal running mate for a party emphasizing unity and reaching out to Northern Democrats.

Somewhat taken to alcohol (he was drunk on Inauguration Day and slurred his speech), Johnson would prove to be a blunder after becoming President upon Lincoln’s assassination. Impeached by the Radical Republicans, he would, ultimately, be returned to the Senate but died just before the new Congress convened.

Sources:

Paul F. Boller, Jr. Presidential Campaigns From George Washington to George W. Bush (Oxford University Press, 2004)
The Language of Liberty: The Political Speeches and Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Joseph R. Fornieri, editor (Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2003)
Page Smith, Trial by Fire: a People’s History of the Civil War and Reconstruction (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1982)

Lincoln's Final Public Speech Addressed Reconstruction

Dec 6, 2010 Michael Streich

1861 Inauguration of Lincoln - Library of Congress Photo Image

Abraham Lincoln called for a speedy and lasting peace three days before his assassination, yet his vision would be obscured by the Radical Republicans.

President Abraham Lincoln’s final public address took place on April 11, 1865. Since his inauguration as president in March 1861, Lincoln had been a “war president,” never wavering from his commitment to preserve the Union. In his last address, he spoke of a “re-inauguration of the national authority…” and his goal of guiding the seceded states into their “proper practical relation with the Union.” Although the battle over Southern Reconstruction began in earnest with Lincoln’s December 1863 Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction, Lee’s surrender to Grant at Appomattox two days before this final address signaled the differences between Presidential Reconstruction and Congressional Reconstruction.

A Reconstructed Louisiana Served as the Example for Other Southern States

New Orleans was captured by Union forces at the end of April 1862. The lengthy presence of Union occupation enabled Louisiana to serve as a model for Lincoln’s Reconstruction Proclamation. Most of his final address defends that plan in the light of substantial progress coming out of the Deep South state.

Enough citizens of Louisiana, in conformity to Lincoln’s so-called “ten percent” plan, had taken the proscribed oath and submitted a new state constitution. The newly elected legislature ratified the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery. Louisiana was committed to non-segregated public schools and granting freedmen voting privileges.

Lincoln’s Final Address was Both Political and Moral

Louisiana represented the first step in bringing the seceding states back into a proper relationship with the Union. In his Second Inaugural Address of March 4, 1865, Lincoln called upon the nation to “strive on to finish the work we are in…” The work included “binding up the nation’s wounds.” The goals of Reconstruction were simple: “…to…achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.”

Lincoln dismissed the question of whether or not the Southern states had actually left the Union. As early as 1861, Lincoln reread the opinions of Chief Justice John Marshall regarding federal supremacy. To reestablish a proper relationship, according to Lincoln, “We simply must begin with, and mold from, disorganized and discordant elements.”

Radical Congressional Republicans Disagreed with Lincoln

Republican leaders like Senator Charles Sumner and Pennsylvania Rep. Thaddeus Stevens believed that Lincoln was too lenient. Many in the Congress were motivated by revenge and called for the execution of Jefferson Davis and high ranking political and military leaders. Senators like Benjamin Wade, author of the harsh Wade-Davis Bill, wanted to deprive any Southern whites that had been associated in any way with the rebellion of future political participation.

Lincoln knew this conflicted with his message of “malice toward none” and “charity for all.” In his final address, he acknowledged the differences of opinion regarding reconstruction. He also admitted that what was accomplished in Louisiana was not the only plan – nor did he intend it to be so. As President and Commander in Chief, however, his December 1863 Proclamation, approved by the entire Cabinet, was justified.

Lincoln’s Assassination Provides an Edge for Congressional Radicals

Abraham Lincoln was assassinated three days after this final, public address. According to his biographers, he had had premonitions about his death. This final address, a last will and testament of his plan of Reconstruction, represented a logical and clear argument for a “righteous and speedy peace.”

Lincoln even addressed black suffrage, stating that the very intelligent as well as those “who serve our cause as soldiers” should receive the franchise. His successor, Vice President Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, would not be so magnanimous. Johnson’s reconstruction views, as well as his strict-constructionist application of the Constitution, would pit him against the Congressional radicals and result in his impeachment trial.

Lincoln’s Final Address Conformed to his Philosophy and Morality

The last public speech of Abraham Lincoln reflected the same ideals he held throughout the war. In the Gettysburg Address he called for a “new birth of freedom…” In the Second Inaugural, Lincoln hoped and prayed that, “…this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.” The final paragraph speaks of a “firmness in the right…”

Every wartime action, even the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, was part of the long-term final goal, a “righteous and speedy peace” that restored the “proper practical relationship” of seceding states with the Union. On the day Lincoln died, the Stars and Stripes were against hoisted over Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, by General Anderson, the same man who defended the federal outpost when Southern General P. T. Beauregard ordered the bombardment of Ft. Sumter. The Union was again one. But the applications of that wholeness would take over 100 years.

Sources:

The Language of Liberty: The Political Speeches and Writings of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Joseph R. Fornieri (Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2003)
Page Smith, Trial By Fire: A People’s History of the Civil War and Reconstruction, Volume Five (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1982)
Jay Wink, April 1865: The Month That Saved America (Harper, 2001)

World Hunger Traced to Colonialism and Biofuels

Jan 7, 2011 Michael Streich

South Pacific Islanders Share Limited Food - Mike Streich Photo Image Taken in Figi

The roots of global hunger can be traced to European colonialism, but are still evident in the global exploitation of biofuels.

Hunger in the under-developed nations is rapidly becoming the chief global crisis, posing questions such as who will live and who will die. Academics and humanitarian organizations trace the problem of hunger to 19th Century colonialism. But a new paradigm that involves the energy needs of industrialized nations is perpetuating the hunger crisis as the last vestiges of sustainable food production give way to the pressures of biofuels.

Colonialism and the Destruction of Traditional Agricultural Patterns

A January 7, 2011 Spiegel article on world hunger asks the decisive question: who decides whether one group receives food while another group must starve? Donations from wealthy countries have fallen as the global economic crisis forced governments to look at domestic needs. Christine Vestal writes, for example, that in the United States, “38 million people are receiving food stamps…” (Global Research, July 14, 2010).

The United Nations World Food Program (WFP) states that the number of hungry people in the world was over one billion in 2009. Frances M. Lappe and Joseph Collins identify colonialism as the root cause of global hunger. According to Lappe and Collins, colonialism destroyed crop diversification to accommodate cash crops like cocoa and cotton. This destructive policy involved the creation of the plantation system as well as efforts to undercut food exports.

Challenging the Colonial Notion of Primitive Cultures

Colonial powers viewed indigenous, native cultures as primitive and backward. Tied to this was the missionary zeal determined to “rescue the perishing” and make them Christian, which, in the 19th Century, was equated with the path toward civilized society. But indigenous cultures were agriculturally advanced and, in many cases, created a diversity of sustainable crops.

Anthropologist Jack Weatherford, writing about the Andean farmers in Northwestern South America at the time of the Spanish conquest, concludes that these farmers, “…were producing about three thousand different types of potatoes in the Andes.” It is also well known that the Aztecs and other groups living in Mesoamerica were noted for the diversity of their crop production, resulting in the Colombian Exchange.

In colonial South Carolina, plantation owners cultivating rice sought African slaves that came from rice producing regions in Africa. During the American Civil War, Britain, deprived of U.S. cotton, turned to Egypt and India, having introduced cotton production in those regions much earlier in anticipation of a U.S. cotton disruption.

Such examples demonstrate two things: colonial powers were well aware of native agricultural expertise and diversity, and were not reluctant to force indigenous peoples to switch agricultural pursuits to commodities that benefited the mother country.

Neo-Colonialism Enhances World Hunger

Somalia went from a net exporter of food to a nation faced with famine during the administration of U.S. President George H.W. Bush. Somalia played a key role during the Cold War. Once that war was over, financial assistance to Somalia ended. This resulted in the rise of war lords. Massive instability ended farming and despite U.S. intervention, Somalia is today a nation of poverty, courted by extremist organizations and involved in high profile piracy.

In a New York Times article (March 3, 2003), Tina Rosenberg noted that Mexican corn farmers are going hungry because of cheap corn imports from U.S. megafarms. Due to the lack of Mexican governmental subsidies and bank credits, small farmers cannot switch to more lucrative commodities. In many cases, their farms are lost to land investors, usually bankrolled by foreign enterprises operating in the wealthy, developed nations.

The 21st Century Need for Biofuels Exacerbates Exploitation and Hunger

Energy consumption drives the industrial developed world. Biofuel production has taken the place of coffee and cocoa plantations. A report by Deutsche Welle (September 8, 2010), concludes that, “With increasing demand for biofuel production reducing areas of arable land around the world, experts fear that the ultimate impact on food security will be global rather than local.”

A January 22, 2009 article in Spiegel details ethanol production in Brazil. During colonial times, Brazil was the first region to be used by Portugal for sugar cultivation. Sugar cultivation resulted in European plantation economies in the New World that depended on African slaves. Today’s slaves are the Brazilians that still harvest sugar cane, but for the energy needs of the developed world. Spiegel reports that, “In 2008 Brazil produced just under 26 billions liters of ethanol, a number projected to rise to 53 billion by 2017.”

A major concern for those working toward a clean environment is the on-going destruction of Brazil's rainforest. Yet while the EU protested strongly and even offered payment to Brazil, the United States, which under President Trump is emasculating every environmental law now in force, turns a deaf ear. "America first" refuses to assess the world's environmental woes even as current leadership turns clean energy on it's head.

Advocates for the Brazilian workers, however, paint a picture of exploitation and abuse. Spiegel quotes Father Tiago stating that, “Anyone who buys ethanol is pumping blood into his tank. Ethanol is produced by slaves.” Deutsche Welle reports that, “Local communities are facing increased hunger and food insecurity just so Europe can fuel its cars.”

Colonialism and the New Imperialism Affects Global Hunger

Colonialism may have ended historically in the mid-20th Century, but economic imperialism continues. Despite nationalization efforts, such as taken by Zambia over the copper mines, global enterprises continue to manipulate local governments and, in the process, ignore the needs of people. In terms of agriculture and global hunger concerns, the destruction of crop diversification that began centuries ago continues.

Spiegel, in its January 7, 2011 article on hunger, concludes, “This is the ugly, inhumane side of international aid.” According to Spiegel, “…billions are being spent to rescue banks and countries…” but the effects of global hunger remain.

Sources:

Frances Moore Lappe and Joseph Conrad, “Why Can’t People Feed Themselves?” Social Problems of the Modern World, Frances V. Moulder, editor (Wadsworth, 2000)
Tina Rosenberg, “Why Mexico’s Small Corn Farmers Go Hungry,” New York Times, March 3, 2003
Jack Weatherford, Indian Givers: How The Indians of the Americas Transformed the World (Fawcett Books, 1988)