albertocampiphoto

Photojournalist | Collective WeReport.fr

  • 50 napada na novinarke u poslednje tri godine u BiH | Bh Novinari

    Résumé texte asso des journalistes de BiH

    Vite fait : trad/résumé d’un article trouvé sur le site de l’asso des journalistes de BiH concernant les attaques sur les journalistes ces 3 dernières années.

    La violence contre les journalistes augmente dans le monde et aussi en BiH comme le souligne la "Ligne d’urgence » pour les journalistes, ces 3 dernières années sont déclarées une cinquantaine d’attaques sur les journalistes consistant en menaces de mort, remarques (attaques ?) sexistes, misogynie, harcèlement sexuel. Ces déclarations ont eu leiu dans le cadre d’une conférence dédiée au travail sur les droits des journalistes et l’avancement du mécanisme de protection des journalistes au niveau institutionnel.
    Il a également été souligné la façon dont les droits des journalistes sont bafoués quotidiennement ainsi que leur liberté d’expression, l’accès auc infos, la liberté de critiquer les institutions publiques et leur droit à un travail stable, payé et gratifiant.

    Edin Ibrahimefendić médiateur pour les droits de l’homme en BiH souligne que chaque atttaque sur les droits socio-professionnels des journalistes a des conséquences sur la qualité de l’information mais aussi par exemple sur les droits des femmes.
    "Les femmes journalistes subissent 3 fois plus d’attaques verbale dégradantes que leurs collègues masculins" déclare Ibrahimefendić

    Irfan Nefić porte parole de la police du canton de Sarajevo a dit qu’il y a un besoin constant de formation au sein de la police et des institutions concernant la protection des droits des journalistes mais qu’il faut aussi progresser dans la société bosnienne pour que les citoyens prennent conscience à quel point les droits des journalistes sont importants. La journaliste Arijana Saračević dit qu’il est important que les journalistes, et particulièrement les jeunes journalistes connaissent l’existence "La Ligne d’aide » aux journalistes à laquelle ils peuvent s’adresser en cas de problème.

    http://bhnovinari.ba/bs/2017/05/25/50-napada-na-novinarke-u-poslednje-tri-godine-u-bih

    #association_journaliste #Bosnie-Herzégovine #agression #violence #libertéDeLaPresse

  • OKC Abrašević -

    #OKC_Abrašević (English: The Youth Cultural Centre #Abrašević) is an open network of non-governmental organizations, informal groups and individuals based in Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina. It offers a space and support to youth in realizing ideas and it encourages projects that promotes civic society, arts and social cohesion. After being closed for nearly ten years, it came back to life in 2003 thanks to a network of non-government, youth associations which were initially created around the MIF (Mostar Intercultural Festival).

    The organization organizes concerts, theatre performances, art exhibitions, workshops, movie screenings, and poetry readings. The main OKC Abrašević space includes a concert hall and a bar.

    Abrašević also houses three subdivisions called AbrašMEDIA, ABArt and AbrašMEDIA Radio. AbrašMEDIA covers news stories and articles, ABArt encourages social transformation through arts and AbrašMEDIA Radio produces radio program.

    http://okcabrasevic.org

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsOSg3p3is0


    #mostar #bosnie #Bosnie-Herzégovine #centre_culturale #multiculturalisme #

  • Albanie : qui veut interdire les chefs d’œuvre du cinéma communiste ? - Le Courrier des Balkans

    Les Albanais se régalent toujours des films produits par le #Kinostudio de Tirana à l’époque de la dictature d’#EnverHoxha, mais l’Institut des crimes du communisme voudrait interdire leur diffusion. Un projet qui suscite une vague d’indignation dans tout le pays, toujours très attaché à ces classiques salués par les professionnels pour leurs exceptionnelles qualités formelles....
    https://www.courrierdesbalkans.fr/Les-films-du-kinostudio-victimes-des-divisions-de-l-Albanie-conte

    #cinéma #communisme #mémoire #albanie

  • Bulgarie : à qui appartient la « soucoupe volante » communiste du mont Bouzloudja ? - Le Courrier des Balkans

    Le Parti socialiste (PSB) risque bien de ne jamais récupérer le gigantesque monument de la Bouzloudja. Construit sous Todor Jivkov, ce dernier devait projeter l’étoile rouge du communisme sur toute la région. Aujourd’hui à l’abandon, il tombe en ruine.

    Le Parti socialiste bulgare (PSB) ne pourra pas récupérer son monument historique sur le mont Bouzloudja. En tout cas, il ne l’aura pas gratuitement. La construction futuriste géante élevée sous Todor Jivkov, abandonnée et pillée, a fait l’objet, ces derniers jours, d’une correspondance intense entre la présidente actuelle du parti, Kornelia Ninova, et le gouvernement.

    En décembre 2012, un décret avait donné au PSB le droit d’acquérir gratuitement le monument et le parti avait été prévenu des démarches administratives qu’il devait entreprendre. Malgré cinq rappels, le PSB n’a rien fait jusqu’en février 2017, jusqu’à ce qu’une nouvelle loi interdise le transfert gratuit de toute propriété de l’État aux partis politiques. Aujourd’hui, la présidente du PSB, « choquée », se dit prête à organiser une manifestation devant le siège du Conseil des ministres. Pour elle, « quelqu’un » veut mettre la main sur la #Bouzloudja .....

    https://www.courrierdesbalkans.fr/Bulgarie-Le-Parti-socialiste-perd-ses-droits-sur-le-monument-giga

    #Bulgarie #soviétisme #monument #spomenik

  • Maschilista e femminista non sono parole equivalenti - Il Post
    In molti lo pensano ancora: e la similitudine delle due parole inganna, ma sono concetti molto distanti

    http://www.ilpost.it/2017/06/16/maschilista-femminista-non-sono-parole-equivalenti

    Alcuni recenti articoli del Post che riguardavano il femminismo hanno ricevuto da diversi lettori commenti e reazioni che mostravano un’errata comprensione dei termini “femminista” e “maschilista”, ponendoli sullo stesso piano e dando loro significati speculari e analoghi, alternativi: come faremmo con “europeo” e “americano”, o “conservatore” e “progressista”, e come se il maschilismo chiedesse per gli uomini ciò che il femminismo chiede per le donne. È forse opportuno quindi spiegare meglio che – linguisticamente e storicamente – non è così.

    Che cos’è il maschilismo
    Il vocabolario Treccani definisce così il “maschilismo”: «Termine, coniato sul modello di femminismo, usato per indicare polemicamente l’adesione a quei comportamenti e atteggiamenti (personali, sociali, culturali) con cui i maschi in genere, o alcuni di essi, esprimerebbero la convinzione di una propria superiorità nei confronti delle donne sul piano intellettuale, psicologico, biologico, ecc. e intenderebbero così giustificare la posizione di privilegio da loro occupata nella società e nella storia». Il dizionario Garzanti: «Atteggiamento psicologico e culturale fondato sulla presunta superiorità dell’uomo sulla donna; comportamento sociale determinato da questo atteggiamento».

    Il maschilismo è dunque un atteggiamento che si manifesta in contesti sociali e privati e che si traduce in pratiche quotidiane che possono essere violente, repressive, offensive o anche semplicemente paternalistiche, basate sulla convinzione che gli uomini siano superiori alle donne: partendo da una innata differenza biologica, la minore forza fisica femminile, e dalle sue conseguenze storiche, il maschilismo stabilisce una gerarchia tra uomini e donne, in cui le donne sono considerate “naturalmente” inferiori anche sul piano intellettuale, sociale e politico. Il maschilismo è dunque una forma di sessismo, cioè una discriminazione nei confronti delle persone basata sul genere sessuale. Come ogni discriminazione, trasforma le differenze in pretese di superiorità, confondendo le due cose.

    Che cosa non è il femminismo
    Per quanto riguarda il femminismo e la sua distinzione dal maschilismo è più immediato dire che cosa non sia: non è, innanzitutto, un atteggiamento psicologico basato su alcune convinzioni. Non è cioè un comportamento basato sul pensiero di una presunta superiorità della donna sull’uomo, né su un’idea di ruoli basata sul sesso, quanto invece su un’analisi storica. Il femminismo è un movimento che ha una nascita (la cui data è oggetto di discussione), più di due secoli di storia e dei soggetti che lo hanno inaugurato e portato avanti. Essendo un movimento storico non ha sinonimi, come non hanno sinonimi l’Illuminismo o il nazionalsocialismo: “egualitarismo”, “umanismo” o “diritti umani” sono concezioni politico-sociali che in qualche caso hanno o hanno avuto con il movimento femminista delle convergenze di contenuti o di finalità, ma che non sono né sostituibili né sovrapponibili a quello specifico processo storico. I contenuti del femminismo sono molto vari e complessi, ma l’obiettivo del femminismo nelle sue varie declinazioni teoriche e pratiche non è quello di affermare una “supremazia delle donne”.

    La parola
    Non ci sono notizie certe sulla nascita della parola e anzi, quando il femminismo era già praticato la parola non esisteva: si è detto che l’inventore del termine “femminismo” sia stato all’inizio dell’Ottocento il filosofo socialista Charles Fourier, favorevole all’uguaglianza tra uomini e donne, ma sembra che non sia vero. Il termine era secondo alcuni già utilizzato in medicina e indicava un disturbo dello sviluppo negli uomini che aveva a che fare con la loro “virilità” e li faceva sembrare femminili (“femminismo” era dunque inteso come “effeminatezza”).

    La parola si ritrova poi in quello stesso periodo nel libro L’Homme-femme del 1872 dello scrittore francese Alexandre Dumas (figlio) in cui dice: «Le femministe, chiedo perdono per il neologismo, dicono: tutto il male viene dal fatto che non si voglia riconoscere che la donna sia uguale all’uomo, che devono avere la stessa istruzione e gli stessi diritti degli uomini». Pur descrivendo le loro ragioni, Dumas usò comunque la parola per sminuire le donne che lottavano per i loro diritti e per essere pari agli uomini. Sembra, infine, che sia stata la suffragetta francese Hubertine Auclert, nel 1882, ad appropriarsi della parola “femminismo” nella sua accezione moderna, rivendicata.

    Che cos’è il femminismo
    Va detto, semplificando, che a differenza di altri movimenti storici il femminismo è assolutamente originale, per forma, contenuti e modalità, e che (almeno in parte) proprio da questa sua originalità possono nascere le difficoltà di inquadrarlo o i molti equivoci che lo circondano.

    Il femminismo non è monolitico, non ha un gesto eclatante che lo abbia inaugurato (paragonabile ad esempio alla presa della Bastiglia), non ha una precisa data di inizio né una data finale. Spesso si scrive che è un movimento carsico, che appare, scompare e poi appare di nuovo e all’improvviso. In realtà secondo alcune pensatrici è più corretto dire che il femminismo è un processo che in alcuni momenti storici si decompone: le protagoniste della sua storia non sono un soggetto politico permanente inserite in un contesto sempre uguale e la peculiarità di quello stesso soggetto viene prima delle altre, è cioè una differenza sessuale, originaria. Nel femminismo ci sono stati momenti di lotta organizzata, identificabili e molto riconoscibili, ma altri no, e senza che questo significasse mai la dispersione dell’eredità politica e teorica precedente.

    La terza specificità del femminismo rispetto ad altri movimenti storici è che nel corso del tempo e dei luoghi geografici in cui si è sviluppato ha avuto modi, pratiche, parole e itinerari sempre differenti tra loro, persino conflittuali, molto articolati e complessi tanto che si preferisce parlare di femminismi al plurale, per darne conto in modo più corretto. Infine, nei movimenti femministi teoria e pratica sono sempre andate insieme alimentandosi a vicenda: accostandosi, traendo forza e occasioni anche da saperi diversi e da altri movimenti storici, ma senza mai confondersi con questi. Si potrebbe dire che il femminismo è un movimento che si è sovrapposto alla storia politica dell’Occidente stesso e a tutte le discipline.

    Quello che si può affermare con certezza è che il femminismo è nato da una semplice e concreta constatazione: che appartenere al sesso femminile, nascere donne invece che uomini, significa trovarsi al mondo in una posizione di svantaggio, di difficoltà (nei migliori dei casi) e di inferiorità. I femminismi si sono infatti prodotti nel corso della storia a partire dai processi di esclusione a cui le donne sono state sottoposte. Come a dire che uno è il punto di partenza, le donne, che a un certo punto prendono parola e mettono in discussione, per modificarla, una certa relazione di potere.
    Semplificando, è perché è sempre esistito il maschilismo, che è cresciuto il femminismo.

    La differenza col maschilismo è dunque il suo nascere da una condizione storica di non libertà e di non parità, non dall’auto-attribuzione di una presunta superiorità basata sul genere. Qualche giorno fa sul New York Times, la modella e attrice ceca Paulina Porizkova ha scritto una lettera in cui dice di essere femminista e spiega quando e perché lo è diventata. Racconta che inizialmente pensava che la parola “femminista” fosse superflua: «Lo pensavo perché in quel momento ero una donna svedese». Arrivata in Svezia dalla Cecoslovacchia quando aveva nove anni si accorse da subito che in Svezia il suo «potere era uguale a quello di un maschio», che i compiti domestici erano divisi equamente, che le relazioni sessuali tra uomini e donne erano equilibrate, che la libertà sessuale di una donna non era considerata disdicevole o motivo di giudizio da parte degli altri, che a scuola durante l’ora di educazione sessuale le avevano spiegato la masturbazione e le avevano insegnato che la maternità è una scelta che le donne potevano fare o non fare. In questo contesto la parola “femminista” le sembrava antiquata, le sembrava cioè che non avesse alcun senso. Porizkova racconta poi che in Francia aveva trovato le cose molto diverse così come in America dove, dice, «il corpo di una donna sembrava appartenere a tutti tranne che a lei stessa»: «La sessualità apparteneva al marito, la sua opinione su di sé apparteneva ai suoi ambienti sociali e il suo utero apparteneva al governo. Doveva essere madre, amante e donna di carriera (ma con una retribuzione inferiore) pur rimanendo eternamente giovanile e magra. In America, gli uomini importanti erano desiderabili. Le donne importanti dovevano esserlo». La sua conclusione: «Mi sono unita a quelle donne che intorno a me si stavano sforzando ad avere tutto, fallendo miseramente. Ora non ho altra scelta se non quella di tirare fuori la parola “femminista” dal cassetto polveroso e darle una lucidata».

    “A nessuno piace una femminista”
    I contenuti del femminismo sono molto vari e complessi, ma l’obiettivo del femminismo nelle sue varie declinazioni teoriche e pratiche non è mai stato quello di affermare una “supremazia delle donne”. Il cosiddetto “conflitto tra i sessi” è stato in certi momenti molto aspro – ci sono state ribellioni e rotture – ma combattuto almeno da una parte senza volontà di prevalere sull’altro. Eppure da molti è così che il femminismo viene considerato, in modo analogo al maschilismo, e definito in modo sprezzante “veterofemminismo”. Parte del problema riguarda l’originalità e l’articolazione stessa dei movimenti femministi che sfuggono a logiche identitarie e monolitiche chiaramente definibili. C’è poi la questione se il femminismo stesso non abbia qualche responsabilità nel fatto di essere così malamente interpretato e il dibattito interno è molto vivace su questo punto. Come fare i conti con una cultura – il maschilismo – che pensandosi superiore si sente diminuita dal femminismo, è un tema.

    Parte del problema, secondo alcune, sta però altrove. Oggi è certamente sempre più raro sentire o leggere che “le donne sono inferiori rispetto agli uomini”, ma è molto diffuso, invece, un anti-femminismo che secondo alcune pensatrici non è altro che una forma mascherata di maschilismo: si chiede dunque o di superare la parola “femminista” o le si attribuiscono significati che quella parola non ha mai avuto. Lo ha spiegato bene la scrittrice Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie nel suo libro “Dovremmo essere tutti femministi” secondo cui negare la parola è negare la sostanza:

    «Non è facile parlare di genere. È un argomento che crea disagio, a volte persino irritazione. Tanto gli uomini quanto le donne sono restii a discuterne, o si affrettano a liquidare il problema, perché pensare di cambiare lo status quo è sempre una scocciatura. C’è chi chiede: “Perché la parola “femminista”? Perché non dici semplicemente che credi nei diritti umani, o giù di lì?”. Perché non sarebbe onesto. Il femminismo ovviamente è legato al tema dei diritti umani, ma scegliere di usare un’espressione vaga come “diritti umani” vuol dire negare la specificità del problema del genere. Vorrebbe dire tacere che le donne sono state escluse per secoli. Vorrebbe dire negare che il problema del genere riguarda le donne, la condizione dell’essere umano donna, e non dell’essere umano in generale. Per centinaia di anni il mondo ha diviso gli esseri umani in due categorie, per poi escludere o opprimere uno dei due gruppi. È giusto che la soluzione al problema riconosca questo fatto».

    Laurie Penny, giornalista britannica che collabora tra l’altro con il Guardian e che è molto attenta alle questioni di genere, si è spinta oltre provando a spiegare la questione della resistenza al femminismo e delle numerose critiche anti-femministe come una deviazione dal reale problema, una nuova forma di negazione:

    «A nessuno piace una femminista. Almeno non secondo i ricercatori dell’Università di Toronto; da uno studio è emerso che le persone ancora sono aggrappate ai tipici stereotipi sulle attiviste femministe, stereotipi come “odiatrici-di-uomini” e “poco igieniche”. Questi stereotipi sembra stiano seriamente limitando la possibilità, per le donne, di abbracciare l’impegno per la liberazione della donna come una scelta di vita. Il femminismo è un casino e c’è bisogno di venirne fuori. Per diventare “importante per le giovani donne di oggi” ha bisogno di radersi le gambe e di un nuovo taglio di capelli.

    (…) Innanzi tutto c’è la questione della parola femminismo, con la quale alcune persone sembrano avere un problema. Queste persone sentono il bisogno di tenere da conto innanzi tutto i sentimenti degli uomini, quando si parla di lavoro, retribuzione o violenza sessuale, per risultare meno minacciose, più eleganti; meglio parlare di “uguaglianza di genere” se dobbiamo parlare a tutti. Quelli cui interessa mantenere lo status quo preferirebbero vedere le giovani donne che agiscono, come dire, nel modo più grazioso e piacevole possibile; anche quando protestano.

    (…) Purtroppo non c’è modo di creare una “nuova immagine” del femminismo senza privarlo della sua energia essenziale, perché il femminismo è duro, impegnativo e pieno di rabbia (giusta). Puoi ammorbidirlo, sessualizzarlo, ma il vero motivo per cui molte persone trovano la parola femminismo spaventosa è che il femminismo è una cosa spaventosa per chiunque goda del privilegio di essere maschio. Il femminismo chiede agli uomini di accettare un mondo in cui non ottengono ossequi speciali semplicemente perché sono nati maschi. Rendere il femminismo più “carino” non lo renderà più facile da digerire.

    Lo stereotipo della brutta femminista che nessuno “si farebbe mai” esiste per una ragione: esiste perché è ancora l’ultima, migliore linea di difesa contro qualsiasi donna che è un po’ troppo forte, un po’ troppo interessata alla politica. Allora le si fa notare che se va avanti così, nessuno la amerà mai».

    #féminisme #machisme #genre @cdb_77

    • #Welt_Bio to see pepper harvests in 2018

      South Korean-owned Welt Bio Co Ltd.’s $40-million pepper plantation in Mondulkiri province is expected to see its first harvest next year from what it claims to be the largest pepper farm in the world.

      “About 200 hectares of the 350-hectare cultivated land have been planted with pepper,” said Song Kheang, director of Mondulkiri’s provincial agriculture department, yesterday.

      “A team from the provincial agriculture department had just visited the plantation and according to our assessment they could start harvesting next year,” he added.

      According to Hean Vanhan, director-general of the general directorate of agriculture at the Ministry of Agriculture, Welt Bio Co plants pepper using seeds from Cambodia and Malaysia.

      “If the company is successful in planting pepper on the total 1,000 hectares of land, it will be the largest pepper plantation in the world,” said Mr Vanhan.

      According to Kim Yuong Jun, CEO of Welt Bio Co, pepper from its Mondulkiri plantation would be exported around the globe.

      Pepper is planted in 19 provinces across the country and Tbong Khmom province, located in the east of the country, contributes to about 75 percent of total production.

      Due to lack of pepper processing factories, most of Cambodia’s black pepper is exported to Vietnam, the world’s biggest pepper producing country.

      Pepper growers are now urging the government to set up processing factories in the country, so that they can bypass the Vietnamese middlemen, and export their products directly overseas.

      “The government should encourage investors to put funds into pepper processing plants so that we wean ourselves away from the Vietnamese traders,” Chan Sophal, a pepper farm owner in Preah Vihear province, told Khmer Times recently.

      Last year, Cambodia’s pepper production was 11,800 tonnes and is predicted to increase by 70 percent, to 20,000 tonnes by the end of 2017, according to the Ministry of Agriculture.

      https://www.khmertimeskh.com/5078377/welt-bio-see-pepper-harvests-2018
      #Corée_du_Sud

  • Legacies and Lessons
    Sexual violence against men and boys
    in Sri Lanka and Bosnia & Herzegovina

    Quelque 3000 hommes et garçons ont été victimes de #violences_sexuelles durant la #guerre de #Bosnie-Herzégovine, mais leur histoire est restée jusqu’à présent secrète. Un tabou que vient de briser un rapport du Williams Institute de l’Université de Californie (UCLA).

    (Avec BalkanInsight) — Plus de deux décennies après la fin de la guerre en Bosnie-Herzégovine, le Williams Institute de l’Université de Californie (UCLA) lève un tabou en publiant un rapport sur les hommes victimes de viol. « Les violences sexuelles contre les hommes et les garçons dans un contexte de guerre restent l’une des violations les plus graves des droits humains, mais aussi l’une des moins bien documentées », souligne le rapport. Selon le Williams Institute, quelque 3000 hommes et garçons ont été violés durant la guerre en Bosnie-Herzégovine, entre 1992 et 1995.

    Le déni et le manque de documentation sur ces crimes ont empêché les victimes de demander justice, explique l’institut. Si la stigmatisation et la honte sont de puissants facteurs qui empêchent de reconnaître ce qui s’est passé, la Bosnie-Herzégovine a également échoué à mettre en place une législation permettant de traiter ce problème, ajoute le rapport. « Les informations recueillies par le projet All Survivors indiquent qu’il n’existe pas de formation spécifique pour aider la police à identifier les violences sexuelles, ni à mener des enquêtes. »
    Un #crime toujours non reconnu

    « Les juges et les magistrats manquent de compréhension et de sensibilité à l’égard des victimes de violences sexuelles, tandis que les procédures pour assurer la confidentialité des victimes, y compris durant les audiences au tribunal, font défaut. » De même, l’absence d’une base de données fiable sur les victimes de violences sexuelles durant la guerre est un obstacle supplémentaire. « La majorité des cas documentés se sont produits en détention, le plus souvent dans des camps de concentration où des civils ont été internés dans des conditions épouvantables. Mais on recense de nombreux cas de violences sexuelles contre des hommes dans d’autres contextes, notamment lors de pillages et d’interrogatoires. »

    Selon le Williams Institute, le Tribunal pénal international pour l’ancienne Yougoslavie (TPIY) a fait quelques progrès en définissant le viol comme une violation des lois et coutumes de guerre et comme un crime contre l’humanité, ainsi qu’en clarifiant la loi sur les violences sexuelles en temps de guerre.

    « Dix des 78 cas jugés par le TPIY portant sur des violences sexuelles contre des hommes ont permis de reconnaître que certains actes commis contre les hommes constituent des crimes internationalement reconnus, comme des relations sexuelles orales forcées, d’autres actes sexuels forcés, des mutilations génitales, des sévices des parties génitales et des menaces de mutilation sexuelle », note l’Institut. Il n’en reste pas moins que, malgré cette contribution positive du TPIY, la nature des violences sexuelles contre les hommes n’est toujours pas pleinement reconnue.

    Report :
    https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Legacies-and-Lessons-May-2017.pdf

    #sri-lanka

  • Trump Addressed a ’Muslim World’ That Does Not Exist - The Atlantic

    “I chose to make my first foreign visit a trip to the heart of the Muslim world,” President Trump said in Riyadh on Sunday, in a speech billed as a call to Muslims to promote a peaceful understanding of Islam and to unite against terrorists.

    Riyadh is the capital of Saudi Arabia, but it is not the capital of the Muslim world. In fact, it’s worth remembering that “the Muslim world” is not actually a place. It’s a Western idea built on the faulty racial logic that Muslims live in a world of their own—that Islam is an eastern, foreign religion that properly belongs in a distant, faraway, dusty place. (This is arguably the logic that underlies Trump’s Muslim travel ban, currently held up in the courts: Islam is foreign, “Islam hates us,” Islam cannot possibly be a real American religion and that is why we can ban its adherents. Stephen Miller, an architect of the travel ban, was also reportedly among the writers of Trump’s Islam speech.)....

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/05/the-muslim-world-is-a-place-that-does-not-exist/527550

    #trump #monde_musulman

    • This April, a mobile registration team was hard at work again in the #Kibera neighborhood of the Kenyan capital, Nairobi. For five days, a team offered people help in securing national identity cards—a document that also serves as vital proof of Kenyan citizenship—setting up in mosques, car parks and community halls that are frequented by members of the country’s Nubian minority.
      Historically, the Nubians of Kibera have been denied citizenship by Kenya, despite having lived there continuously since before independence in 1963 (their ancestors were brought to what is now Kenya in the 19th and early 20th centuries as conscripts into the British colonial army).

      #minorités #nationalité #citoyenneté #pièce_d'identité #aptridie

  • Württ. Kunstverein Stuttgart: Titos Bunker

    The point of departure for this exhibition, on show at the Württembergischer Kunstverein from May 27 to August 6, 2017, is a particular place, Tito’s bunker in Konjic (Bosnia and Herzegovina), which is equally negotiated as concrete location and as open-ended metaphor.

    From 1953 to 1979, the former head of state in Yugoslavia, Josip Broz Tito, initiated the top-secret construction of a gigantic and—at least theoretically—nuclear-safe bunker in Konjic, a town situated around 40 kilometers south of Sarajevo (and today located in Bosnia and Herzegovina). This shelter, drilled 300 meters deep into the mountain and occupying a space of 6,500 square meters, was conceived for the survival of 350 chosen representatives of the country’s political and military elite of that time—including just one woman: Jovanka B. Broz, Tito’s wife. Tito himself outlived the accomplishment of the structure by just one year.
    Not until the 1990s did the existence of this construction project, which cost 4.6 billion US dollars, become public knowledge. At this time, still no global atomic war had happened, fortunately, but the nation (or more precisely: its “elites”) that was (were) to be rescued in this bunker had disappeared: it was quasi atomized.

    In 2011, the two artists Edo und Sandra Hozic succeed in launching the Project Biennial D-0 ARK, whose site was to be Tito’s Bunker. From the very beginning, their aim has been to amass a collection of art through the biennial that would ultimately serve as a basis for a museum in the bunker.


    http://www.wkv-stuttgart.de/en/program/2017/exhibitions/titos-bunker
    http://www.wkv-stuttgart.de/en/program/2017/exhibitions/titos-bunker/konjic

    #tito #bunker #art #exposition

  • Killing Pavel - OCCRP

    Belarusian journalist Pavel Sheremet’s reporting had challenged authorities from Minsk to Moscow and Kyiv.

    In a murder that shocked the world, he was killed by a car bomb in the Ukrainian capital in July 2016.

    Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko called for law enforcement to find and punish those behind the attack, but authorities have so far been unable to solve the case.

    For over nine months, reporters from OCCRP and Slidstvo.Info conducted their own investigation, both into the murder and into the police probe – and recorded every step of the way. “Killing Pavel” is the result of these efforts.

    In exclusive footage and interviews, the film reveals crucial information about the night and morning of the killing that never found its way into the official investigation – and asks why.

    https://www.occrp.org/en/documentaries/killing-pavel

    #occpr #journalisme #documentaire #Russie #Biélorussie #Pavel_Sheremet #homicide #attentat

    • Etudiants dans la bulle financière

      Dans ces pays, le même constat : il faudrait une vie entière pour rembourser les coûts de l’université. Le prêt moyen est d’environ 30 000 dollars, qui peut monter à 80 000 ou 100 000 dollars... Avec des intérêts atteignant les 13%. Sur les 43 millions de personnes ayant contracté de telles dettes, 10% sont en défaut de paiement aux Etats-Unis contre 6,3% en 2004. Des signaux inquiétants, qui plombent les classes moyennes et ouvrières.

      En Suisse, nous n’en sommes pas encore à ces niveaux. Selon l’Office fédéral de la statistique, 13% des étudiants s’endettent pour leurs études. En 2015, les cantons ont accordé 17 millions de francs de prêts à 2300 jeunes – soit moins de 8000 francs en moyenne.

      https://www.lecourrier.ch/151679/etudiants_dans_la_bulle_financiere
      #Suisse

    • The inescapable weight of my $100,000 student debt

      MH Miller left university with a journal full of musings on Virginia Woolf and a vast financial burden. He is one of 44 million US graduates struggling to repay a total of $1.4tn. Were they right to believe their education was ‘priceless’?

      On Halloween in 2008, about six weeks after Lehman Brothers collapsed, my mother called me from Michigan to tell me that my father had lost his job in the sales department of Visteon, an auto parts supplier for Ford. Two months later, my mother lost her job working for the city of Troy, a suburb about half an hour from Detroit. From there our lives seemed to accelerate, the terrible events compounding fast enough to elude immediate understanding. By June, my parents, unable to find any work in the state where they spent their entire lives, moved to New York, where my sister and I were both in school. A month later, the mortgage on my childhood home went into default.
      Lose yourself in a great story: Sign up for the long read email
      Read more

      After several months of unemployment, my mother got a job in New York City, fundraising for a children’s choir. In the summer of 2010, I completed my studies at New York University, where I received a BA and an MA in English literature, with more than $100,000 of debt, for which my father was a guarantor. My father was still unemployed and my mother had been diagnosed with an aggressive form of breast cancer. She continued working, though her employer was clearly perturbed that she would have to take off every Friday for chemotherapy. To compensate for the lost time, on Mondays she rode early buses into the city from the Bronx, where, after months of harrowing uncertainty, my parents had settled. She wanted to be in the office first thing.

      In January 2011, Chase Bank took full possession of the house in Michigan. Our last ties were severed by an email my father received from the realtor, who had tried and failed to sell the property, telling him he could now cancel the utilities. In May, I got a freelance contract with a newspaper that within a year would hire me full-time – paying me, after taxes, roughly $900 every two weeks. In September 2011, my parents were approved for bankruptcy, and in October, due to a paperwork error, their car was repossessed in the middle of the night by creditors. Meanwhile, the payments for my debt – which had been borrowed from a variety of federal and private lenders, most prominently Citibank – totalled about $1,100 a month.

      Now 30, I have been incapacitated by debt for a decade. The delicate balancing act that my family and I perform in order to make a payment each month has become the organising principle of our lives. I am just one of 44 million borrowers in the US who owe a total of more than $1.4 trillion in student loan debt. This number is almost incomprehensibly high, and yet it continues to increase, with no sign of stopping. Legislation that might help families in financial hardship has failed in Congress. A bill introduced in May 2017, the Discharge Student Loans in Bankruptcy Act, which would undo changes made to the bankruptcy code in the early 2000s, stalled in committee. Despite all evidence that student loan debt is a national crisis, the majority of the US government – the only organisation with the power to resolve the problem – refuses to acknowledge its severity.

      My debt was the result, in equal measure, of a chain of rotten luck and a system that is an abject failure by design. My parents never lived extravagantly. In the first years of their marriage, my father drove a cab. When they had children and my father started a career in the auto industry, we became firmly middle-class, never wanting for anything, even taking vacations once a year, to places like Myrtle Beach or Miami. Still, there was usually just enough money to cover the bills – car leases, a mortgage, groceries. My sister and I both attended public school. The cost of things was discussed constantly. In my freshman year of high school, I lost my yearbook, which cost $40; my mother very nearly wept. College, which cost roughly $50,000 a year, was the only time that money did not seem to matter. “We’ll find a way to pay for it,” my parents said repeatedly, and if we couldn’t pay for it immediately, there was always a bank willing to give us a loan. This was true even after my parents had both lost their jobs amid the global financial meltdown. Like many well-meaning but misguided baby boomers, neither of my parents received an elite education, but they nevertheless believed that an expensive school was not a waste of money; it was the key to a better life for their children. They continued to put faith in this falsehood even after a previously unimaginable financial loss, and so we continued spending money that we didn’t have – money that banks kept giving to us.
      Advertisement

      I have spent a great deal of time during the last decade shifting the blame for my debt. Whose fault was it? My devoted parents, for encouraging me to attend a school they couldn’t afford? The banks, which should have never lent money to people who clearly couldn’t pay it back to begin with, continuously exploiting the hope of families like mine, and quick to exploit us further once that hope disappeared? Or was it my fault for not having the foresight to realise it was a mistake to spend roughly $200,000 on a school where, in order to get my degree, I kept a journal about reading Virginia Woolf? (Sample passage, which assuredly blew my mind at the time: “We are interested in facts because we are interested in myth. We are interested in myth insofar as myth constructs facts.”) The problem, I think, runs deeper than blame. The foundational myth of an entire generation of Americans was the false promise that education was priceless – that its value was above or beyond its cost. College was not a right or a privilege, but an inevitability on the way to a meaningful adulthood. What an irony that the decisions I made about college when I was 17 have derailed such a goal.

      After the dust settled on the collapse of the economy, on my family’s lives, we found ourselves in an impossible situation: we owed more each month than we could collectively pay. And so we wrote letters to Citibank’s mysterious PO box address in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, begging for help, letters that I doubt ever met a human being. We grew to accept Citibank as a detestable Moloch that we feared and hated, but were made to worship. The letters began to comprise a diary for my father in particular, a way to communicate a private anguish that he mostly bottled up, as if he was storing it for later. In one letter, addressed “Dear Citi,” he pleaded for a longer-term plan with lower monthly payments. He described how my mother’s mounting medical bills, as well as Chase Bank’s collection on our foreclosed home, had forced the family into bankruptcy, which provided no protection in the case of private student loans. We were not asking, in the end, for relief or forgiveness, but merely to pay them an amount we could still barely afford. “This is an appeal to Citi asking you to work with us on this loan,” he wrote to no one at all.

      Finally, at the beginning of 2012, my father started writing to the office of Congressman Joseph Crowley, who represented the district in the Bronx where my parents had relocated. In one of these letters, he described watching Too Big to Fail, an HBO film about the financial crisis, which had come out several months earlier. (My parents lost every asset they had, but they still subscribed to HBO, which became more than TV for them – a symbolic relic of their former class status.)

      The recession was over, officially anyway, and people who had not suffered its agonies were already profiting from its memory. Recession films often took place in the gleaming offices of hedge funds and investment banks, with attractive celebrities offering sympathetic portrayals of economists and bankers – Zachary Quinto, in 2011’s Margin Call, for instance, plays a rocket scientist turned risk analyst with a heart of gold, a do-gooder who discovers that his employer has leveraged itself to the edge of bankruptcy. These films often depicted figures who experienced little to no repercussions for their roles in leading the country into a recession, who abused the misfortune of people like my parents – unmentionables who owed more on their houses than what they had paid for them and, of course, rarely featured in the story at all.
      Advertisement

      My father described himself and my mother to Crowley as “the poster children for this entire financial event”, by which he meant Americans who seemed to have done everything right on paper, but in doing so contributed to their own downfall. By the time he wrote to Crowley, my father was working again, but it had taken him two years to find another job, which paid him much less money. After his run of financial calamity, he knew better than to believe anything good would last. “We are in our 60s and I figure when we get to our mid-70s life will become difficult again,” he wrote.

      Crowley’s office wrote back. It was the first time in about two years that a person had responded to our correspondence with encouragement, or something like it. Someone who worked for his office in Washington helped to arrange a conference call with government liaisons from Citigroup to discuss a different payment plan. The monthly payments to Citi were then more than $800 a month, and we were trying to talk them into letting us pay the loan over a longer period, at a rate of about $400 a month. These terms were reasonable enough, but the response to this request was like an automated message brought to life: “We are precluded from a regulatory perspective from being able to do what you are asking,” each of the representatives said. What made these exchanges more ridiculous was the fact that Citibank was in the process of retreating from the student loan market by selling off my debt to Discover Financial, who would give us the same response. We were nothing to these companies but a number in a database. And they fully controlled our fates.

      I used to wonder if the people who worked for these lenders had families of their own, and if they would ever find themselves bankrupt, wondering where they were going to live. Most of all, I wondered what they would do if their own children had to take out loans to pay for college. After 10 years of living with the fallout of my own decisions about my education, I have come to think of my debt as like an alcoholic relative from whom I am estranged, but who shows up to ruin happy occasions. But when I first got out of school and the reality of how much money I owed finally struck me, the debt was more of a constant and explicit preoccupation, a matter of life and death.

      I had studied English because I wanted to be a writer. I never had an expectation of becoming rich. I didn’t care about money. My MA fed an intellectual curiosity that eventually led me to newspapers, and I don’t regret that my translation of The Dream of the Rood from Old English to contemporary vernacular was not a terribly marketable or even applicable skill. I understand now the extent to which I was among the most overeducated group of young adults in human history. Still, following completion of this degree, I enrolled for an evening class in French at New York’s Cooper Union, as that deferred my having to start paying off the debt, and the cost of the new class was cheaper than the monthly repayments I would have to make. Once I could no longer delay and the payments began, a question echoed through my head from the moment the day began, and often jolted me awake at night. I would look at the number on my paycheck and obsessively subtract my rent, the cost of a carton of eggs and a can of beans (my sustenance during the first lean year of this mess), and the price of a loan payment. The question was: What will you do when the money from the paycheck is gone?

      I never arrived at an answer to this question. At my lowest points, I began fantasising about dying, not because I was suicidal, but because death would have meant relief from having to come up with an answer. My life, I felt, had been assigned a monetary value – I knew what I was worth, and I couldn’t afford it, so all the better to cash out early. The debt was mind-controlling – how I would eat or pay my rent without defaulting was a constant refrain, and I had long since abandoned any hope of a future in which I might have a meaningful line of credit or a disposable income, or even simply own something – but it was also mind-numbingly banal. I spent a great deal of time filling out paperwork over and over again, or waiting on hold for extended periods in order to speak to a robotic voice that would reject my request. It didn’t matter what the request was or who I was asking. It was always rejected.

      And so it felt good to think about dying, in the way that it felt good to take a long nap in order to not be conscious for a while. These thoughts culminated in November 2010, when I met with my father one afternoon at a diner in Brooklyn to retrieve more paperwork. My hope for some forgiving demise had resulted in my being viciously sick for about 10 days, with what turned out to be strep throat. I refused to go to the doctor in the hope that my condition might worsen into a more serious infection that, even if it didn’t kill me, might force someone to at last lavish me with pity. I coughed up a not insignificant portion of yellowish fluid before my father and I entered the restaurant. We sat at a table, and I frowned at the forms he handed me. I started the conversation by asking, “Theoretically, if I were to, say, kill myself, what would happen to the debt?”

      “I would have to pay it myself,” my father said, in the same tone he would use a few minutes later to order eggs. He paused and then offered me a melancholy smile, which I sensed had caused him great strain. “Listen, it’s just debt,” he said. “No one is dying from this.”

      My father had suffered in the previous two years. In a matter of months, he had lost everything he had worked most of his adult life to achieve – first his career, then his home, then his dignity. He had become a 60-year-old man who had quite reluctantly shaved his greying, 40-year-old mustache in order to look younger, shuffling between failed job interviews where he was often told he had “too much experience”. He was ultimately forced out of the life he’d known, dragging with him, like some 21-first-century Pa Joad, a U-Haul trailer crammed with family possessions, including, at the insistence of my mother, large plastic tubs of my childhood action figures.

      Throughout this misery, my father had reacted with what I suddenly realised was stoicism, but which I had long mistaken for indifference. This misunderstanding was due in part to my mother, whom my father mercifully hadn’t lost, and who had suffered perhaps most of all. Not that it was a competition, but if it were, I think she would have taken some small amount of satisfaction in winning it. The loss of home and finances felt at least like a worthy opponent for cancer, and yet here was my father telling me that none of this was the end of the world. I felt a flood of sympathy for him. I was ashamed of my selfishness. The lump in my throat began to feel less infectious than lachrymal. “OK,” I said to him, and that was that. When I got home I scheduled an appointment with a doctor.

      Much of the dilemma about being in debt came down to numbers that I could only comprehend in the abstract. There was $38,840 at 2.25% interest, and a notice that in May 2016 the interest would increase to 2.5%. And a $25,000 loan at 7.5%, to which my family and I had contributed, over the course of three years, $12,531.12 and on which I now owed $25,933.66. More than what I started out with. I memorised – or, more often, didn’t – seemingly crucial details about my debt that turned out to be comically meaningless: a low-interest loan from Perkins was serviced by a company called ACS, which had rebranded to Conduent Education and sent out notices with their new logo and the message “Soon to be Conduent.” Citibank, referring to itself as “Citibank, N.A. (Citibank),” transferred the servicing of my loans to Firstmark, and I had to create an account with them. Student loan firm Sallie Mae’s lending arm span off into an independent company called Navient. In 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sued Navient, alleging that it “systematically and illegally [failed] borrowers at every stage of repayment”.

      Navient released a public statement in reponse to that suit, which said: “There is no expectation that the servicer will act in the interest of the consumer.” When I received a notice from Navient in February 2017 that my monthly payments would be increasing, for reasons I did not comprehend, the email came with a note at the bottom saying: “We’re here to help: We’re happy to help you navigate your options, provide you with resources, and answer any questions you have as you repay your loans.” The company’s motto is, hilariously, “Solutions for your success”.
      Advertisement

      These announcements flooded my inbox with subject lines declaring “Important Information”, but none of them altered my fate. Sometimes the monthly payments would go up, sometimes my salary would go up, sometimes I made a cheque out to a different company. The only stable thing was the money I owed, which never seemed to get any lower. And so the cash would go out to the various lenders with the blind hope that it was right. On top of all that was a dreadful anticipation that any day now I might hear from the credit bureau and my life would somehow bottom out.

      In some twisted way, I wanted it to happen. My mother’s cancer went into remission, and both of my parents found, in their 60s, new careers in New York. I maintained steady employment in journalism since finishing school, and in 2016 I was hired as an editor at the New York Times. Was it possible we had become lucky? I had spent so much time wondering what life’s nadir looked like that I was now curious whether it had already come and gone.

      In the summer of 2017, my father, now nearing 70, had lost another job, so I finally removed him as a guarantor and refinanced my loans with one of the few companies that provides such a service, SoFi. My wife, who agreed to marry me last autumn, would help with the payments when she could. Sharing the burden of my debt with my spouse instead of my parents was a small, depressing victory, a milestone perhaps unique to members of my generation, one that must have carried the same kind of significance that purchasing a home and having a mortgage had to my parents.

      SoFi has not made my situation much more tenable. The main difference is that I now write one cheque instead of several, and I have an end date for when the debt, including the calculated interest – about $182,000 – will be paid off: 2032, when I’ll be 44, a number that feels only slightly less theoretical to me than 30 did when I was 17. What I have to pay each month is still, for the most part, more than I am able to afford, and it has kept me in a state of perpetual childishness. I rely on the help of people I love, and I live by each paycheck. I still harbour anxiety about the bad things that could befall me should the paycheck disappear.

      But the “Important Information” I receive has changed. SoFi is a Silicon Valley startup that bills itself as “a new kind of finance company”; its name is shorthand for Social Finance, Inc. In addition to loans, it offers membership outreach in the form of financial literacy workshops and free dinners. Their aim is to “empower our members” – a mission that was called into question by the resignation, in September 2017, of its CEO, Mike Cagney, who employees allege had engaged in serial workplace sexual harassment and who ran the office, according to a New York Times headline, like “a frat house.” The allegations, according to a report in the Times, include Cagney exchanging explicit text messages with employees, bragging about the size of his genitalia, and the company’s chief financial officer offering bonuses to female employees if they lost weight. In January, SoFi hired Anthony Noto, formerly of Twitter, as Cagney’s replacement.

      SoFi has also received criticism for its elitism, and for courting only wealthy, high-earning borrowers – to which I can only say this is a category with which I do not personally identify, especially after writing the check to SoFi each month. The news ahout Cagney came out not long after I refinanced my loans with the company – I became, I suppose, a SoFi’er, in the company’s parlance. Around the same time, I started receiving curious emails from them: “You’re Invited: 2 NYC Singles Events” or “Come Celebrate Pride with us!”

      “Dear NYC SoFi’er,” one of these emails read, “Grab a single friend and join us for a fun night at Rare View Rooftop Bar and Lounge in Murray Hill! You’ll mingle with some of our most interesting (and available!) members… ” The invitation cited a statistic that promised “86% of members at other SoFi Singles events said they met someone they want to see again”.

      I will reiterate that I am a 30-year-old married man with more than $100,000 of debt, who makes less each year than what he owes. Buying a pair of trousers is a major financial decision for me. I do not think myself eligible in any sense of the word, nor do I find my debt to be amusing merely on a conversational level.

      Still, I felt as if in 10 years, the debt hadn’t changed, but the world had, or at least the world’s view of it. This thing, this 21st-century blight that had been the source of great ruin and sadness for my family, was now so normal – so basic – that it had been co-opted by the wellness industry of Silicon Valley. My debt was now approachable, a way to meet people. It was, in other words, an investment in my future, which is why I had gone into debt in the first place. Would SoFi be this friendly if I lost my job and missed a monthly payment?

      Let’s say I was morbidly intrigued. The day after Valentine’s Day, I went to a Mexican restaurant in the financial district for a SoFi community dinner – this was not a singles event, but simply a free meal. There had been another of these dinners near my apartment the week before, but it had, to my surprise, quickly sold out. The restaurant was packed with an after-work crowd in business attire, and SoFi had rented out the back room, where a few dozen people had gathered, all wearing name tags and discussing financial woes. Sid, a software developer from Queens who had racked up credit card debt after college, told me that the debt was a unifying force at these gatherings. “When there’s a break in the conversation, someone can just say, ‘So, debt, huh?’ and things will get going again,” he said. “If we walked outside of this room,” he continued, gesturing to the suits by the bar, “everyone out there would have debt, too. It’s just a little more out in the open for us.”

      Despite the name tags, the dinner turned out to resemble something more like an AA meeting, an earnest session of group therapy. Everyone had their story about the problems caused by their student loans and how they were trying, one day at a time, to improve things, and no story was exceptional, including my own. Ian, an employee for Google who had recently successfully paid off his debt from a Columbia MBA programme, became something like my sponsor for the evening. He said he had a few “bone dry” years, when he lived on instant noodles. I told him I had a long way to go. “At least you’re doing something about it,” he said, sincerely.

      We sat down to dinner. Across from me was Mira, a defence attorney from Brooklyn, who attended law school at Stanford. Her payments amount to $2,300 a month, more than double my own. When I asked her why she came to this event, she glanced at me as if the answer should have been obvious: her payments are $2,300 a month. The table, myself included, looked on her with an odd reverence. She wore a business suit and had her hair pulled back, but I saw her as something like the sage and weathered biker of the group, talking in her wisdom about accepting the things you cannot change.

      After the food was served, a waiter came by with a stack of to-go boxes, which sat on the edge of the table untouched for a while as everyone cautiously eyed them. The group was reluctant at first, but then Ian said, “The chicken was actually pretty good,” as he scooped it into one of the boxes. Mira shrugged, took a fork, and said: “This is a little tacky, but I’d hate to waste free food,” and the rest of the table followed her lead. Maybe the next generation would do better, but I felt like we were broke and broken. No number of degrees or professional successes would put us back together again. For now, though, we knew where our next meal was coming from.


      https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/21/the-inescapable-weight-of-my-100000-student-debt?CMP=twt_gu

    • Étudiants, l’avenir à crédit

      Sous l’effet de la compétition internationale, les universités se transforment en de gigantesques entreprises. Une enquête aussi éclairante qu’inquiétante sur un phénomène émergent en Europe.

      Compétitivité, marketing ou retour sur investissement sont des termes qui circulent désormais dans les couloirs feutrés des grandes universités. De Shanghai à New York en passant par Paris et Berlin, la transmission des connaissances devient une marchandise, dans le sillage de « l’économie du savoir », une doctrine érigée à la fin des années 1990 par les instances financières internationales – OCDE et Banque mondiale en tête. L’enseignement supérieur, reconnu comme un moteur de productivité et de croissance économique, doit se mettre au service du développement des pays. Victimes de ce nouveau système, les étudiants sont contraints d’investir pour apprendre. Ils s’acquittent de frais d’inscription de plus en plus élevés, et s’appauvrissent avant même d’entrer dans la vie active. Aux États-Unis, la dette étudiante a dépassé le coût du logement et de la santé, menaçant l’économie nationale. Les jeunes Européens suivront-ils la même voie ? Si certains pays d’Europe du Nord résistent à cette commercialisation du savoir, considérant l’éducation comme un acquis social, d’autres s’inspirent de plus en plus du modèle anglo-saxon. En France, les établissements les plus prestigieux, comme Sciences-Po et Paris-Dauphine, se sont déjà engagés sur le chemin du payant.

      À bout de souffle
      Étayé par des chiffres effarants, ce documentaire fouillé dresse un état des lieux de la mutation des universités du monde entier. Des États-Unis jusqu’à la Chine, nouvel eldorado de l’enseignement supérieur mondial, le réalisateur pointe les dérives de la marchandisation du savoir en partant à la rencontre d’étudiants étouffés par leurs crédits et terrifiés par l’avenir.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN2QOnp3aXk


      #vidéo #documentaire #film