• La Californie dédommage les victimes de stérilisation forcée Katja Schaer/jfe
    https://www.rts.ch/info/monde/12353527-la-californie-dedommage-les-victimes-de-sterilisation-forcee.html

    L’Etat de Californie, aux Etats-Unis, a décidé cette semaine d’octroyer 7,5 millions de dollars de son budget aux victimes de stérilisation forcée. La pratique remonte au début du XXe siècle, portée par plusieurs scientifiques de renom favorables à l’eugénisme.

    Au moins 20’000 personnes - femmes et hommes - ont subi une stérilisation forcée en Californie. Mais ce chiffre est peut-être l’arbre qui cache la forêt, les documents et les données étant difficiles à se procurer et souvent gardés secrets.


    La stérilisation forcée trouve son origine au XIXe siècle. A l’époque, plusieurs pans de la médecine convergent vers le même objectif : l’amélioration de la race humaine.

    Jusqu’en...2014
    Cette amélioration passe notamment par la stérilisation forcées des personnes jugées « anormales ». En 1909, la Californie adopte alors sa première loi eugéniste, qui l’autorise à stériliser les personnes emprisonnées et institutionnalisées.

    La loi va connaître deux modifications qui permettront d’élargir la définition de l’anormalité. Les personnes handicapées, les malades psychiques et mentaux, les pauvres et les personnes de couleur - en particulier d’origine latine - pourront être stérilisées. De nombreuses femmes jugées « sursexuées » seront elles aussi soumises à cette procédure.

    Officiellement, la loi autorisant la stérilisation forcée a été invalidée en 1979. La pratique a toutefois été maintenue dans les prisons. Les dernières affaires remontent à 2014.

    La pratique était autorisée dans la majorité des Etats américains, mais la Californie compte pour un tiers des quelque 60’000 interventions pratiquées à l’échelle nationale.

    Basée sur l’eugénisme
    Si la stérilisation forcée a été si largement appliquée en Californie, c’est parce qu’au début du XXe siècle, l’Etat est l’épicentre de la pensée eugéniste aux Etats-Unis. L’amélioration de la race s’est imposée en science et la Californie abrite plusieurs scientifiques de renom, favorables à cette théorie.

    Ce concept est même porté par les grandes universités, comme Stanford, notamment. En 1920, le président de l’université californienne, David Starr Jordan, postule que des traits de caractères ou mêmes des conditions sociales comme le talent et la précarité, sont héréditaires.

    Le directeur s’oppose au mélange de races et déplore ce qu’il appelle le déclin de la race nordique, à laquelle il associe les Anglo-Saxons. Ces scientifiques n’auraient pas pu exister sans l’aide d’organisations comme l’institution Carnegie ou la fondation Rockefeller.

    Au début du XXe siècle, Oliver Wendell Holmes, juge à la Cour suprême américaine, soutient la pratique de la stérilisation forcée. Ses propos seront d’ailleurs repris pour défendre les pratiques nazies lors du procès de Nuremberg.

    #eugénisme #racisme #transhumanisme #stérilisation #contraception_forcée #histoire #santé #inégalités #femmes #stérilisation #Pauvres #Femmes #Hommes #nefants #Californie #USA #états_unis #Stanford #philanthropie #philanthropes #Carnegie #Rockefeller #philanthrocapitalisme #philanthropie

    • La Californie, cet état qu’on nous présente toujours comme un paradis.
      Quand aux bienfaiteurs professionnels de l’institution Carnegie ou de la fondation Rockefeller, ce sont aussi des innocents professionnels.

    • En France,le nombre de stérilisations dans la population générale, déjà peu élevé, a diminué au cours des dix dernières années, il est de 22.000environ par an.Pour les handicapés, aucune enquête n’était disponible, en matière ni de stérilisation, ni de contraception. La mission a réalisé une étude spécifique à partir des actes de stérilisation masculine et féminine effectués en1995 et1996 dans les hôpitaux publics et quelques établissements privés, selon les données du PMSI.D’après ces données déclaratives, l’ampleur du phénomène, notamment pour les personnes handicapées, apparaît faible, mais non marginal . On a ainsi repéré en 1996 environ 15 cas de stérilisation d’hommes handicapés sur les 423 actes de ligatures des canaux déférents et quand même 2% de stérilisations de femmes, handicapées ou en grandes difficultés sociales, selon le diagnostic associé, c’est à dire 211 cas sur10.453. Enfin, la tranche d’âge des femmes de moins de 25 ans qui ont eu une ligature bilatérale des trompes comprend vingt femmes, soit un quart de l’effectif.

      https://www.vie-publique.fr/sites/default/files/rapport/pdf/984001636.pdf

  • The power of private philanthropy in international development

    In 1959, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations pledged seven million US$ to establish the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) at Los Baños in the Philippines. They planted technologies originating in the US into the Philippines landscape, along with new institutions, infrastructures, and attitudes. Yet this intervention was far from unique, nor was it spectacular relative to other philanthropic ‘missions’ from the 20th century.

    How did philanthropic foundations come to wield such influence over how we think about and do development, despite being so far removed from the poor and their poverty in the Global South?

    In a recent paper published in the journal Economy and Society, we suggest that metaphors – bridge, leapfrog, platform, satellite, interdigitate – are useful for thinking about the machinations of philanthropic foundations. In the Philippines, for example, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations were trying to bridge what they saw as a developmental lag. In endowing new scientific institutions such as IRRI that juxtaposed spaces of modernity and underdevelopment, they saw themselves bringing so-called third world countries into present–day modernity from elsewhere by leapfrogging historical time. In so doing, they purposively bypassed actors that might otherwise have been central: such as post–colonial governments, trade unions, and peasantry, along with their respective interests and demands, while providing platforms for other – preferred – ideas, institutions, and interests to dominate.

    We offer examples, below, from three developmental epochs.

    Scientific development (1940s – 70s)

    From the 1920s, the ‘big three’ US foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie) moved away from traditional notions of charity towards a more systematic approach to grant-making that involved diagnosing and attacking the ‘root causes’ of poverty. These foundations went on to prescribe the transfer of models of science and development that had evolved within a US context – but were nevertheless considered universally applicable – to solve problems in diverse and distant lands. In public health, for example, ‘success against hookworm in the United States helped inspire the belief that such programs could be replicated in other parts of the world, and were indeed expanded to include malaria and yellow fever, among others’. Similarly, the Tennessee Valley Authority’s model of river–basin integrated regional development was replicated in India, Laos, Vietnam, Egypt, Lebanon, Tanzania, and Brazil.

    The chosen strategy of institutional replication can be understood as the development of satellites––as new scientific institutions invested with a distinct local/regional identity remained, nonetheless, within the orbit of the ‘metropolis’. US foundations’ preference for satellite creation was exemplified by the ‘Green Revolution’—an ambitious programme of agricultural modernization in South and Southeast Asia spearheaded by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and implemented through international institutions for whom IRRI was the template.

    Such large-scale funding was justified as essential in the fight against communism.

    The Green Revolution offered a technocratic solution to the problem of food shortage in South and Southeast Asia—the frontier of the Cold War. Meanwhile, for developmentalist regimes that, in the Philippines as elsewhere, had superseded post-independence socialist governments, these programmes provided a welcome diversion from redistributive politics. In this context, institutions like IRRI and their ‘miracle seeds’ were showcased as investments in and symbols of modernity and development. Meanwhile, an increasingly transnational agribusiness sector expanded into new markets for seeds, agrichemicals, machinery, and, ultimately, land.

    The turn to partnerships (1970s – 2000s)

    By the 1970s, the era of large–scale investment in technical assistance to developing country governments and public bureaucracies was coming to an end. The Ford Foundation led the way in pioneering a new approach through its population programmes in South Asia. This new ‘partnership’ mode of intervention was a more arms-length form of satellite creation which emphasised the value of local experience. Rather than obstacles to progress, local communities were reimagined as ‘potential reservoirs of entrepreneurship’ that could be mobilized for economic development.

    In Bangladesh, for example, the Ford Foundation partnered with NGOs such as the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) and Concerned Women for Family Planning (CWFP) to mainstream ‘economic empowerment’ programmes that co-opted local NGOs into service provision to citizens-as-consumers. This approach was epitomised by the rise of microfinance, which merged women’s empowerment with hard-headed pragmatism that saw women as reliable borrowers and opened up new areas of social life to marketization.

    By the late-1990s private sector actors had begun to overshadow civil society organizations in the constitution of development partnerships, where state intervention was necessary to support the market if it was to deliver desirable outcomes. Foundations’ efforts were redirected towards brokering increasingly complex public-private partnerships (PPPs). This mode of philanthropy was exemplified by the Rockefeller Foundation’s role in establishing product development partnerships as the institutional blueprint for global vaccine development. Through a combination of interdigitating (embedding itself in the partnership) and platforming (ensuring its preferred model became the global standard), it enabled the Foundation to continue to wield ‘influence in the health sphere, despite its relative decline in assets’.

    Philanthrocapitalism (2000s – present)

    In the lead up to the 2015 UN Conference at which the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were agreed, a consensus formed that private development financing was both desirable and necessary if the ‘trillions’ needed to close the ‘financing gap’ were to be found. For DAC donor countries, the privatization of aid was a way to maintain commitments while implementing economic austerity at home in the wake of the global finance crisis. Philanthrocapitalism emerged to transform philanthropic giving into a ‘profit–oriented investment process’, as grant-making gave way to impact investing.

    The idea of impact investing was hardly new, however. The term had been coined as far back as 2007 at a meeting hosted by the Rockefeller Foundation at its Bellagio Centre. Since then, the mainstreaming of impact investing has occurred in stages, beginning with the aforementioned normalisation of PPPs along with their close relative, blended finance. These strategies served as transit platforms for the formation of networks shaped by financial logics. The final step came with the shift from blended finance as a strategy to impact investing ‘as an asset class’.

    A foundation that embodies the 21st c. transition to philanthrocapitalism is the Omidyar Network, created by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar in 2004. The Network is structured both as a non–profit organization and for–profit venture that ‘invests in entities with a broad social mission’. It has successfully interdigitated with ODA agencies to further align development financing with the financial sector. In 2013, for example, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) launched Global Development Innovation Ventures (GDIV), ‘a global investment platform, with Omidyar Network as a founding member’.

    Conclusion

    US foundations have achieved their power by forging development technoscapes centred in purportedly scale–neutral technologies and techniques – from vaccines to ‘miracle seeds’ to management’s ‘one best way’. They have become increasingly sophisticated in their development of ideational and institutional platforms from which to influence, not only how their assets are deployed, but how, when and where public funds are channelled and towards what ends. This is accompanied by strategies for creating dense, interdigitate connections between key actors and imaginaries of the respective epoch. In the process, foundations have been able to influence debates about development financing itself; presenting its own ‘success stories’ as evidence for preferred financing mechanisms, allocating respective roles of public and private sector actors, and representing the most cost–effective way to resource development.

    Whether US foundations maintain their hegemony or are eclipsed by models of elite philanthropy in East Asia and Latin America, remains to be seen. Indications are that emerging philanthropists in these regions may be well placed to leapfrog over transitioning philanthropic sectors in Western countries by ‘aligning their philanthropic giving with the new financialized paradigm’ from the outset.

    Using ‘simple’ metaphors, we have explored their potential and power to map, analyse, theorize, and interpret philanthropic organizations’ disproportionate influence in development. These provide us with a conceptual language that connects with earlier and emergent critiques of philanthropy working both within and somehow above the ‘field’ of development. Use of metaphors in this way is revealing not just of developmental inclusions but also its exclusions: ideascast aside, routes not pursued, and actors excluded.

    https://developingeconomics.org/2021/05/10/the-power-of-private-philanthropy-in-international-development

    #philanthropie #philanthrocapitalisme #développement #coopération_au_développement #aide_au_développement #privatisation #influence #Ford #Rockefeller #Carnegie #soft_power #charité #root_causes #causes_profondes #pauvreté #science #tranfert #technologie #ressources_pédagogiques #réplique #modernisation #fondations #guerre_froide #green_revolution #révolution_verte #développementalisme #modernité #industrie_agro-alimentaire #partnerships #micro-finance #entrepreneuriat #entreprenariat #partenariat_public-privé (#PPP) #privatisation_de_l'aide #histoire #Omidyar_Network #Pierre_Omidyar

  • L’#ONU perd #Guernica, la tapisserie anti-guerre de #Picasso, récupérée par la famille #Rockefeller | Connaissance des Arts
    https://www.connaissancedesarts.com/arts-expositions/cubisme/lonu-perd-guernica-la-tapisserie-anti-guerre-de-picasso-recuper

    Installée à l’entrée de la salle où se réunit le Conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU, la tapisserie, représentant Guernica (1937) de Picasso (1881-1973), avait pour but de rappeler les horreurs de la guerre aux dirigeants du monde. Réalisée en 1955 par l’atelier français Jacqueline de La Baume-Dürrbach, pour le compte de l’industriel Nelson Rockefeller, elle a été réclamée par son fils, qui n’a pas communiqué ses raisons. Prêtée à l’ONU à partir de 1984, l’œuvre avait été commandée par Rockefeller après que Picasso, qui refusait de lui vendre l’original, lui a suggéré cette alternative. Il s’agit du premier des trois exemplaires tissés du tableau autorisés par l’artiste. Le départ de la tapisserie a suscité un grand émoi chez les responsables internationaux, qui n’envisagent pas de réclamer la tapisserie à Nelson Rockefeller Junior.