Tweet
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>A revolution of conscience (3)</SPAN>
<SPAN class=Subheadline>Common Sense</SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>John Maxwell
Sunday, April 01, 2007
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=StoryText align=justify>You may be puzzled by the title of this column - 'A Revolution of Conscience (3)" - because you are unlikely to know that I've written at least two previous articles with the same title, the first one in 1964 or 65.<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=70 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>John Maxwell </SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>Ordinarily, revolution is defined as the violent overthrow of a system of government by its subjects, or in Marxist theory, the inevitable violent transition from one system of production in society to the next. According to Marx, the struggle of the revolution to be born is the basis of the class struggle, and since nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come, and no one so stubborn as the beneficiaries of the old system, the struggle must be violent and end with the unconditional surrender of the ancien régime.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Marx holds that people and classes who own and exercise power do not surrender that power peacefully, which is the reason for the violence of revolution, and so far, history has not proved him wrong.<P class=StoryText align=justify>'Peaceful revolution' is generally considered to be an oxymoron - the forced mating of two antipathetic concepts. But since I am, unlike most people, against the shedding of anyone's blood, I believe it is possible that there are others who believe that surrendering and gaining power may be possible by non-violent means. Perhaps, in Jamaica, we should consider that the revolutionary bloodletting may well be already symbolised by the infraclass violence which has taken the lives of nearly 20,000 people over the last 20 years.<P class=StoryText align=justify>All of this is provoked by the response to my last column which appeared to reveal that my utopian idealism may be more common and perhaps more powerful than anyone has thought.<P class=StoryText align=justify>I am writing this half-a-week before the prime minister's scheduled national broadcast, and a day after several signs that some parts of the world may be moving towards common sense faster than I had imagined.
Within the past week there have been three developments I consider significant, two of them abroad and one in Jamaica.<P class=StoryText align=justify>On Thursday, the United Nations officially endorsed circumcision as an effective means of controlling the spread of HIV/AIDS, which has literally decimated some populations in Africa and threatens to do the same all over the developing world. It is predicted to cost Jamaica six per cent of our GDP.
The UN/WHO decision is belated, since it has been known for more than 10 years that circumcision could save millions of lives and container loads of misery and grief. As a story in the San Francisco Chronicle notes: "Advocates have been urging the World Health Organisation and other international agencies to endorse the procedure for more than a decade."<P class=StoryText align=justify>Circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin covering the tip of the penis. The thin layer of skin is rich in the white blood cells targeted by HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Studies in Africa have demonstrated that in nations where circumcision is part of the culture, the prevalence of HIV is much lower than in those parts where circumcision is not the norm.
Since this knowledge has been around since the pandemic was in its embryonic stages, I have never been able to understand why the powers that be have not made the promotion of circumcision a major part of their campaigns, preferrin
<SPAN class=Subheadline>Common Sense</SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>John Maxwell
Sunday, April 01, 2007
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=StoryText align=justify>You may be puzzled by the title of this column - 'A Revolution of Conscience (3)" - because you are unlikely to know that I've written at least two previous articles with the same title, the first one in 1964 or 65.<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=70 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>John Maxwell </SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>Ordinarily, revolution is defined as the violent overthrow of a system of government by its subjects, or in Marxist theory, the inevitable violent transition from one system of production in society to the next. According to Marx, the struggle of the revolution to be born is the basis of the class struggle, and since nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come, and no one so stubborn as the beneficiaries of the old system, the struggle must be violent and end with the unconditional surrender of the ancien régime.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Marx holds that people and classes who own and exercise power do not surrender that power peacefully, which is the reason for the violence of revolution, and so far, history has not proved him wrong.<P class=StoryText align=justify>'Peaceful revolution' is generally considered to be an oxymoron - the forced mating of two antipathetic concepts. But since I am, unlike most people, against the shedding of anyone's blood, I believe it is possible that there are others who believe that surrendering and gaining power may be possible by non-violent means. Perhaps, in Jamaica, we should consider that the revolutionary bloodletting may well be already symbolised by the infraclass violence which has taken the lives of nearly 20,000 people over the last 20 years.<P class=StoryText align=justify>All of this is provoked by the response to my last column which appeared to reveal that my utopian idealism may be more common and perhaps more powerful than anyone has thought.<P class=StoryText align=justify>I am writing this half-a-week before the prime minister's scheduled national broadcast, and a day after several signs that some parts of the world may be moving towards common sense faster than I had imagined.Within the past week there have been three developments I consider significant, two of them abroad and one in Jamaica.<P class=StoryText align=justify>On Thursday, the United Nations officially endorsed circumcision as an effective means of controlling the spread of HIV/AIDS, which has literally decimated some populations in Africa and threatens to do the same all over the developing world. It is predicted to cost Jamaica six per cent of our GDP.
The UN/WHO decision is belated, since it has been known for more than 10 years that circumcision could save millions of lives and container loads of misery and grief. As a story in the San Francisco Chronicle notes: "Advocates have been urging the World Health Organisation and other international agencies to endorse the procedure for more than a decade."<P class=StoryText align=justify>Circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin covering the tip of the penis. The thin layer of skin is rich in the white blood cells targeted by HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Studies in Africa have demonstrated that in nations where circumcision is part of the culture, the prevalence of HIV is much lower than in those parts where circumcision is not the norm.
Since this knowledge has been around since the pandemic was in its embryonic stages, I have never been able to understand why the powers that be have not made the promotion of circumcision a major part of their campaigns, preferrin