Banned speech

Cristovam Buarque, Professor of the Universidade
Nacional do Brasil, ex-governor of Brasilia, D.F.

As reported in the Brazilian Daily O Globo on the 23rd of October, 2000.
During a recent discussion, in the United States, someone asked my opinion regarding the internationalization of the Amazon Region. The youngster asserted that he expected a response of a humanist and not of a Brazilian.

This was the first time anyone had established the humanist viewpoint as the starting point for my response. In fact, as a Brazilian I would have responded simply against internationalization of the Amazon Region. Even if our governments have not given the attention that this treasure deserves, it is ours. I responded that, as a humanist, realizing the risk of environmental destruction that threatens the Amazon Region, I could imagine its internationalization, just as for everything else that is important to humanity.

If the Amazon Region, from a humanist΄s point of view, has to be internationalized, then we should internationalize the oil reserves of the entire the world as well. Oil is just as important to the well being of humanity as the Amazon Region for our future. Nevertheless, the owners of oil reserves feel it is in their right to increase or decrease oil production and to raise or lower the price. The rich of the world, feel they have the right to burn this valuable possession of humanity. Similarly, the financial capital of the wealthy nations should be internationalized. If the Amazon Region is a natural reserve for every human being, then it could not be burned down by the decision of a landowner or a country. To burn down the Amazon Region is so tragic, as the unemployment provoked by the arbitrary decisions of world wide speculators. We cannot permit that the world΄s financial reserves serve to burn down entire nations according to the whims of speculacion.

Before the (internationalization of the) Amazon Region, I would like to see the internationalization of all the world΄s great museums. The Lourve cannot belong only to France. Each museum in the world is a guardian for the most beautiful works produced by the human genius. It cannot be permitted that these cultural possessions, as the natural possession of the Amazon Region, can be manipulated or be destroyed according to the whims of an owner or a country. Recently, a Japanese millionaire decided to have a painting of a grand master buried with him in the grave. This painting should have been internationalized.

At the time of the meeting, in which this question came up, the United Nations convened the Forum of the Millennium and the presidents of several countries had difficulties in attending due to barriers (they faced) at the border. Therefore, I contend that New York, as the base of the United Nations, should be internationalized. At least Manhattan should belong to all of humanity. Similarly Paris, Venice, Rome, London, Rio de Janeiro, Brazilia, Recife, every city with its own beauty, its own history should belong to the whole world.

If the United States wants to internationalize the Amazon Region, due to the risk of leaving it in Brazilian hands, then we should internationalize all the nuclear stockpiles of the United States. Particularly since they have already shown that they are capable of using these weapons, causing a destruction thousands of times greater than the sad fires taken place in the Brazilian forests.

During their debates, the current U.S. presidential candidates have defended the idea of internationalizing the world forest reserves in exchange for the debt. We could begin to use this debt to guarantee the right of every child in the world to attend school. We could internationalize the children treating all of them, regardless of their birthplace, as a possession which deserves the care and attention of the entire world. Even more so than the Amazon Region. When the world leaders attend to the world΄s poor children as possessions of Humanity, they will no longer permit that these children work when they should be studying, that they die when they should be living.

As a humanist I accept to defend the internationalization of the world. So long as the world treats me as a Brazilian, I will fight so that our Amazon Region will be ours. Only ours.

South American Press denied publication of the Speech above. Other than that what do you think about this? What is your opinion on sustainability? Are you aware on how important it is?

kinda reads like the words of a prophet.

for the record I think dangerous jungles are cool and should be left alone

[QUOTE=Mr Karlfor the record I think dangerous jungles are cool and should be left alone[/QUOTE]
+1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OliX

South American Press denied publication of the Speech above. Other than that what do you think about this? What is your opinion on sustainability? Are you aware on how important it is?

---

well I don't know anything about Brazilian Law, but for instance, in the US free speech only extends to what the Government may allow. In other words, they can't pass a law that says you are not allowed to publish a newspaper. But the newspaper company can refuse to publish any article that it wants, and if you don't like it, then either get a new job with a different company, or publish your own paper.

If the government owns the newspaper and doesn't allow individuals to publish their own, then that country probably don't have much free speech to begin with.

oh yeah, and on the subvject, if I understood it correctly (I didn;t read it all, sorry). my position is save the trees.

go digital, and if you must use paper, use recycled paper. and if you simply can't use recycled paper, then use hemp or nylon synthetic.

and instead of wood, use concrete or brick or metal (recycled?) or synthetic material again.

I'm all for preserving the worlds ecosystems and natural resources but I have to agree with the author of that speech. To him it doesn't appear to be a question of save the trees vs letting them burn.

I think he sees it as stepping on the sovereignty of a nation because you feel they aren't doing what you want them to do. (that is what I got out of it anyway) .

When you approach it as an issue of national sovereignty vs. international benefits it is kind of understandable why the speech was banned from being printed. The issue itself steps on a lot of toes and raises a lot of questions that were also raised with the US invasion of Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RnR

national sovereignty vs. international benefits

---

"The love for one individual is barbarous, for it is practiced at the expense of everyone else. Even a love for God."
-F.W. Nietzsche

In this context substitute God for Country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

"The love for one individual is barbarous, for it is practiced at the expense of everyone else. Even a love for God."
-F.W. Nietzsche

In this context substitute God for Country.

---

In history there are many accounts of men forsaking country out of compassion for other living beings. These men were used and abused and eventually had their land/culture taken from them by the very people that they helped.

Some Native American tribes on the East Coast are a good example.

As a fan of Neitzsche I'm not going to argue with your quote. I'm just saying that a love for your country/culture/people is not necessarily a bad thing.

Although now that I think about it....the Natives did have their land taken from them by people practicing a love of God..slightly killing my point..but yeah.....you get the idea.

haha. naw, there's nothing wrong with liking your clan more than everybody else, but when you act in such a way (as nation's do) that actualizes that by hurting the rest of the world, it is a bad thing, and for more than just morality. Choosing the path of least success just doesn't make sense.

We seem to act like the people of the future owe us something and sacrifice them for the preservation of the people of the present- which is ultimately futile.

To put it really simply, cutting down all the trees is bad, and so is refusing to allocate resources to keep millions of people from starving. Making choices that you know will hurt you a lot later to help you a little bit now is not even selfishness, it's just stupidity. Effectively managing world resources for the maximum gain is the only option that makes any sense, especially on an individual level.

Ahh, I see what you were getting at now and I agree.

Ok, so I read the article. I'm not sure if the author is being facetious when he talks about "internationalising" of all those things. But I agree that they should - those things are just resources or material objects. sharing them doesn't take away from the solidarity of a group, because the group shares a culture, which is an immaterial thing that can't be given away (only destroyed by the eradication of the group)

I think the author is being facetious.

A lot of the things he mentions internationalizing are parts of the economy of the places that they are in. I think his point is that by internationalizing the amazon region it is actually hurting the national economy and weakening the power of that nation and in practice it would cause a shift in power in the global community that just taking on the debt would not solve.

well yes, but the thing is the economy falls into that category I was talking about of stupid things that don't make any sense.

people are leveraging things of value in exchange for money, which has no value.

the whole reason that money was invented was because it was supposed to just be a token representation of a real object and it was symbolized by another real object that had a finite quantity, such as gold. But now money itself has a value that is independent from any real objects. If you want more money, you just create it out of thin air. (which is why a loaf of bread in Zimbabwe costs 10 million dollars) It's not even based on near worthless paper anymore, but wholly intangible information on a computer, which is entirely worthless.

If the world economy collapses tomorrow, people would act like it was the end of existence, even though nothing would be different in reality. Like somehow you'd have to give back everything that you've ever bought, and nothing could ever be sold or produced again. Am I the only person that thinks that is the definition of insane?

It is insane to think that the world would just stop if the economy collapsed. I actually just think it would force the world to go back to backing their money with gold and silver or even diamonds. However, doing that would severely hurt the nations of the world without those precious gems and metals in abundance. (IMO anyway).