What’s Wrong with the World

Just an extra level of squick... given that this is Rowanda, wanna bet that there's going to be a racial/religious aspect?

Pardon the phonetic spelling. >.

That's something I hadn't thought of, Foxfier.

Lydia,

I can't believe I didn't tell you about this weeks ago! I've had two articles sitting in my pile for weeks, meaning to put together a blog post about this new Rwandan Genocide. Absolutely hideous, isn't it?

Foxfier, I you *really* want to be phonetic and spell it the way it sounds when Rwandans say it, it should be something like "rUwanda" with a barely audible "r" that is almost entirely skipped. ;-)

Kamilla

The intervention is part of a growing global interest in the potential for integrating family planning and child immunization services.

This comment chilled me to the bone. Will it become a situation that if you want one(immunizations for your child), you have to take the other(birth control)?

In a third-world country, Gina, it's quite likely that mothers will be given that impression. It might be that the foreign aid workers wouldn't come right out and say it in so many words and will retain plausible deniability. (On the other hand, maybe they _will_ tell the mothers that they have to agree to family planning to get health care for their children. There have been anecdotal reports to this effect given to PRI over the years, though I don't know specifically about Rwanda.) What the paragraph makes clear at least is that to get immunizations, these women are going to have to submit to being harangued and nagged (aka "informed" or "educated") on the subject.

Umm...good. Does the world really need millions more Africans?

I agree that our taxes should’t be used to fund this but presumably Christian Rwandan men won’t have themselves vasectomized.
Kamilla, I don’t think Genocide is the best word for what’s being described in this post.

Bruce,

Having met the new Abp of Rwanda and having worshipped with Rwandans for much of the past seven years, I do believe it is precisely the right word.

The genocide killed 800,00 Rwandans. This new "project" aims at sterilizing nearly that many men - which translates into many more children who will never be. If that's not a genocidal project, I don't know what is.

Nor do I hold your presumption that Christian men will not be sterilized. Considering the enthusiasm with which the rest of the world has embraced the contraceptive culture and add in the enormous government pressure that will be brought to bear (not least of which is the tying of children's immunization to "family planning"!), I think you are being overly optimistic.

Kamilla

I'm thinking of the conventional definition of genocide which google says is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group."

Kamilla,

I would assume that they are mostly Roman Catholic & Anglican. African Anglicans tend to be much more conservative than the Anglican Communion and the continuuing churches have gained a lot of ground there. One would think that their Bishops & Priests would teach against this.

rechill, that's a pretty darned odious comment. I'm only _just_ not deleting it in order to have a chance to make it clear that it isn't welcome.

Bruce, I don't think we can presume anything of the kind. Non-Catholics often do not consider such procedures to be wrong, and whatever hesitation Christian (or other) African men may feel will be ridiculed by those pushing the procedure as "merely cultural." Plus there will be pressures--for example, if it's "suggested" in the army or police force, there would be many types of reprisals that could be taken against someone who refused, including loss of job. Typically the governments of such countries don't have our Western squeamishness about pushing their people around in more and less subtle ways. Note the almost touching lack of embarrassment with which the Minister of Health admits their intent to "get to the reproductive systems" of men in the country.

I don't know anything about the denominational make-up of Christians in Rwanda. Is there no substantial low-Protestant contingent? In any event, when you're told you could be left without a job if you don't do something, what your priest or pastor happens to say may well go to the wall, whatever denomination you are.

Uhm, Bruce - exatly how does what Lydia has reported on here *not* fit the description you've just posted?

It is deliberate.

It is sytematic.

The result is the destruction of the people of Rwanda.

Because of my acquaintance with a few Rwandans plus a few other Africans, I hold no such illusions about their conservatism. Yes, they are more conservative than CofE and TEC in some matters - but not in others.

I also don't think you have any idea about the sorts of pressures that are brought to bear on governments that don't fall in line with UN-style population control programs -- and how those governments then turn around and coerce their own citizens. It's not pretty.

And can you honestly say you would resist sterilization for yourself if your refusal meant your children might not get the vaccines they need? Or you might not get free mosquito nets for their beds?

Kamilla

It doesn't fit the description because they aren't trying to destroy the Rwandan people and I don't see how this will lead to the destruction of the Rwandan people. They're trying to make them have fewer children. I'm not saying what they're doing is right, just that they're not genociding (forgive me for using genocide as a verb) the Rwandan nation.

I don't think Christian men should vasectomize themselves. If there's a dire need to limit children, then they can use natural family planning.

I don't think Christian men should vasectomize themselves. If there's a dire need to limit children, then they can use natural family planning.

Well, then you should be bothered about this, Bruce. Not to mention the coercion.

It's a somewhat interesting question to me: Suppose some non-Christian thinks a vasectomy is perfectly fine, no problem, but has always made a big song and dance about the deep importance of choice in sexual matters, controlling one's own body, etc. Does such a person get up in arms about these kinds of programs, or does such a person pretend that they are totally voluntary and close his eyes to the evidence otherwise? In the case of forced abortions in China, I'm afraid we already know the answer.

Kamilla can correct me if I'm wrong, but my perception is that African cultures, aside from specific religion, place a very high value on male fertility as a sign of virility and therefore would be quite resistant to male sterilization. If the governments can get past the big barrier of the cultural stigma on male sterility--perhaps by sheer bullying and/or bribery--then no specifically religious objection stemming from Christianity is likely to have any effect.

Lydia, thanks for leaving rechill's comment up. It really drives home what the entire point is-- get rid of THEM.

This is just a much more tidy way to go about getting rid of the undesirables. (*gag*)

This is hideous. But for all the potential for coercion, I'd just point out that even non-coercive smaller family programs for well-intentioned (but misguided reasons) tend to be quite effective. I don't know for a fact this is true, but it has been said (and I would expect) that after China's brutal and coercive ways to limit families to 1-2 children, that the populace now thinks that is best in any case because of the massive advertising over a generation. If they'd have just been more patient people would have believed the advertising that smaller families were better for them in the end just as well without coercion. Some nations have proven the effectiveness of simply advertising alone.

I'm opposed to all this you understand, but I'm just pointing out how effective social pressure is in drastically reducing family sizes by programs promoting "ideal families" as something other than what they currently are. There is no need for coercion. The powerful lure of "modernization" to many cultures is so very strong. Where are the anti-modernists when you really need them?

China and Africa are pretty different. I have heard a humorous story which I've never confirmed, but it would illustrate African thinking: There was some sort of non-written campaign in an African country to promote population control. It showed a picture of a man with a big, nice house and only two children (some such number). The Africans interpreted it to mean that a big house made you impotent. You see the point.

Oh I know China and Africa are different, but I was generalizing and there are other countries to support my point too. Mexico is one. A massive falloff in fertility rate only due to advertising on the modern family.

Bruce,

Even if that isn't their conscious intent, destroying the Rwandan people is, without question, the end result if their program is successful. Even by your definition, this program fits the label.

Lydia,

That is largely true, in my experience. However, the example of Uganda in fighting the AIDS pandemic shows that governmental pressure can been effective if it is combined with other agencies and programs.

Kamilla

(For those wondering about the Uganda thing: don't screw around, support the notion of traditional family.)

Kamilla,

Based on the information presented here, there's little reason to expect that most or all Rwandan men will be vasectomized before they've had any children. So calling it a new "genocide" is overblown.

I think a sober estimate would be that the vasectomy program, if successful in the terms of the people running it, would result in a drastic population drop-off in Rwanda and a very noticeable greying of the population. This would of course lead to its own problems, as it has elsewhere. The people promoting the program would be pleased by this drastic population plummet and wouldn't care much about any unintended side effects. I do find that broad-scale shrugging attitude to a precipitous population drop somewhat disturbing, and it is true that if a comparable population decrease came about in a number of other ways, many would call it "genocide," but I am not particularly concerned myself to apply the label "genocide." I'm more concerned with pointing out that this is a major human rights abuse. Would you agree with that assessment, Bruce?

I think a sober estimate would be that the vasectomy program, if successful in the terms of the people running it, would result in a drastic population drop-off in Rwanda and a very noticeable greying of the population.

Not necessarily. If they acheived their goal, there would still be something like 4.8 million non-vascectomized men and 5.5 million women. Rwandans average 6 children per woman so I don't think you'll see a precipitous population drop and greying anytime soon.

I do find that broad-scale shrugging attitude to a precipitous population drop somewhat disturbing

There's not much we can do about it other than not fund it.

I don't like the term "human rights" but I think in the post you demonstrate that it has the POTENTIAL to be a major human rights abuse. You've demonstrated that it could be, not that it is. You're saying that there could be coersion, not that there is.

You're saying that there could be coersion, not that there is.

Bruce, I think the more you follow these things, the more you will understand that coercion is going to happen.

If they acheived their goal, there would still be something like 4.8 million non-vascectomized men and 5.5 million women.

For now. The goal will be a moving one as the people presently under x age grow older. Presumably the younger men will become eligible for the program when they pass a certain age, which would, of course, have a further effect on the average number of children per woman in Rwanda. You can't keep up the same average number of children per woman if the men the women are having sex with are sterilized!

They have 4.9 children per woman, not a 6. Their birth rate is 36.7 per thousand, and infant mortality is 64 per thousand live births. (This is an improvement over the 90s.)

Amusingly, they've got a higher literacy rate than Detroit....

I must have been looking at UN data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate

Wikipedia. Nuff said.

CIA. Nuff said.

Yes, CIA World Factbook, AKA the one they compiled for non-classified use for US gov't personnel. That's why I used it.

Beats a web site that is known for being horrible on anything controversial.

Why not just admit you didn't even bother to read the source on the data you were using, or you'd know it was a 2006 estimate of future populations?

What's controversial about fertility rates? Everyone knows Africa has high ones. Not exactly something being hushed.

Why not just admit you didn't even bother to read the source on the data you were using...

Probably because it doesn't really matter much whether the number is 4.9 children or 5.9 children. The basic point was that they have high fertility rates. Of course I just glanced at the data - I was sitting at my desk at work.

Some people are more interested in winning internet debates than they are discussing things. I've seen this from a certain person at this website before. They nitpick at some minor point (one that doesn't change anything you're saying) so they can be right.

What's controversial about fertility rates? Everyone knows Africa has high ones. Not exactly something being hushed.

You're kidding, right? You haven't noticed the "population bomb" thing going on for the last several decades?

Probably because it doesn't really matter much whether the number is 4.9 children or 5.9 children.

....Right. There's no difference at all between a old, bad projection that's 20% higher than the current estimated actual per-woman birth rate.

No difference at all between a grandmother having 18 grandchildren, and her having 12. All ignoring the death rate for children, of course.

Some people are more interested in winning internet debates than they are discussing things.

Helllooo, projection!

Wikipedia is part of a conspiracy to exaggerate the fertility numbers of Africans because of the population time bomb? I doubt anyone has the precise number. They're fertile.

....Right. There's no difference at all between a old, bad projection that's 20% higher than the current estimated actual per-woman birth rate.

It doesn't really matter much with regard to the point I was making, genius. Again, they're fertile. There's no reason to belive this will result in a depopulating of Rwanda. It isn't clear that this is a new Rwandan genocide.

Helllooo, projection!

Not projection. You ignore the basic point being made in order to nitpick details.

All ignoring the death rate for children, of course.

You're ignoring the ratio of births to deaths. And this is the statistic that's more relevant to my point.

Rwanda's birth rate is 36.74 births/1,000 population (6.4 % die in infancy) and their death rate is 9.88 deaths/1,000 population. So they're not on the road towards depopulation.

A country that is actually depopulating itself has a ratio more like that of Japan (7.3 births/1,000 population, 10.1 deaths/1,000 population).