Revisiting the "Terror island" article

We are acting as ignorant (1.lacking knowledge or education in general or in a specific subject, 2. caused by a lack of knowledge, understanding, or experience) to the world’s realities as we are claiming that the writer of the article is to Dominica’s reality. The angry responses are very similar in tone and temperament to those of Americans who are now convincing themselves that Dem. Presidential Candidate Barack Obama’s Pastor has made comments which are completely new to the American landscape and bears no truth. This I believe is primarily because much as is the case with Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s comments. Snippets, emotion and pre-conceived notions rather that context and honest judgment prevail. Note I did not say good judgment as I believe that good judgment is in fact in abundance here. The headline which includes word “terror” seems to be the primary issue, followed by the use of the remark “grinding poverty”. The catchy headline was just that, a catchy headline, which many of us cannot get passed and realize that the article makes no other suggestions that Dominica is in any way associated with terrorist actions. It does however acknowledge that Hugo Chavez, our closest donor of present is a noted detractor of the US Government and is quickly becoming one of the most watched and scrutinized individuals in the world BY the United States. What on earth is not factual about that position? As hypocrite and heavy handed as we may want to paint the USA, these are facts. It does not make the US position correct but that is exactly what the “controversial” article states. Basically it states that as unwarranted as the US position may be it does not change the fact that recent history as well as ongoing events proves that if need be America can and will act in its perceived best interest. Even if as in the case of Grenada, as is suggested in the article a situation must be created through US covert actions an influence. Many of the comments lamenting the article are so obviously emotional that they actually tackle issues not even dealt with in the article AT ALL. Such as the fact that Dominica is so beautiful and peaceful. Who said otherwise? Also we have decided that since no one in Dominica is “starving to death” the poverty situation is in fact in check. After all they are persons building “mini Mansions” (side note: NO home in Dominica can compare the the sprawling mansions and multi million dollar properties found in Haiti) in Dominica and driving “luxury vehicles”. Speak to ANY farmer on island and they will tell you how often locals come to ask for free provisions, bananas that have fallen in the field, breadfruit that has started to spoil, oranges and grapefruit, limes and old coconuts. Ask ANY farmer and they will tell you of this daily occurrence. This is REALITY not cartoons. It happens DAILY. But maybe we are right, this is just as a result of regular poverty not “grinding”. Point taken! However I would be Remiss if I did not mention the fact that in 2006 a GOVERNMENT report paper cited that among the kalinago people 50% of them live in poverty and of that about half are "indigent"(Definition: 1.One who is poor and cannot afford basic necessities of life like food, shelter and clothes. It also refers to a defendant who cannot afford a lawyer/attorney to fight the case. In such cases, the court authorities provides a government attorneys to try the case. 2.Lacking food, clothing, and other necessities of life because of poverty; needy; poor; impoverished) and that 13% of persons in the St. Mark parish experience the same reality. The report goes on to list other areas of indigents in several areas of the island. Perhaps "indigent" poverty would have been a more charming way of conveying the same message. I would beg that we read the article and after every completed sentence make an exacting assertion as to why we agree or disagree with that point. At the end of this exercise I would like us to look over our honestly constructed notes, free of emotion and the blinding patriotism which we criticize many US citizens for and then make an informed and definite argument as to why the very LEFT leaning CAHO organization put out an article which some here, and on other forums have described as RIGHT-WINGED. The entire tone of the article is everything that the “Right” is not. And that is another reason why I believe that this article should be revisited without deciding our reaction before we get passed the headline. I have heard it (the article) describes as a cloak and dagger affair designed to appear friendly and informative while pushing a far right agenda. This I must say is highly unlikely as this would have been a very, very well concealed agenda seeing that CAHO for years has had an almost anti-Washington imperialism stance. Just to further place CAHO in a realistic context, here is an exert of how CAHO has spent its recent years, according to their own website; “COHA has directed a good deal of its research energies to such issues as unproductive U.S. pressure on President Aristide which eventually led to his ouster and Washington’s replacement with a hapless interim regime. COHA also has condemned Washington’s unexamined and reflexive policy towards Cuba and Venezuela, and the negative impact of neo-liberal reforms on the average Latin American”. Like fire, Emotion is a brilliant servant but an evil and dangerous master. So are certain Agendas.