As do we all, Jot.

The problem is that progress has to be well-defined and the ramifications understood, or it may produce bad outcomes from the best of intentions.

"The problem is that progress has to be well-defined and the ramifications understood...."

Ain't that the truth!

I hope you'll both find time to read Arundhati Roy's article on the big dams of India and the ensuing displacement of people who have been displaced and found themselves existing in "slums on the peripheries of our great cities."

(They weren't hunters gatherers, Joe - just ordinary autonomous peasant farmers.....that's "were")

http://www.narmada.org/gcg/gcg.html

I'll just add, Joe, that I'm surmising that those displaced peasants to whom Arundhati Roy refers would "love" to go back to their villages - if they weren't under water.

Sorry, Poirot, you've lost me - what is this thread about again ? Women's rights on Afghanistan ?

As it happens, I'm with Arundhati Roy in her opposition to the dam in question.

Joe

You are disingenuous at times, Joe.

Particularly if someone hits the target with a pertinent point "related" to the subject at hand, even if not necessarily right on it.

When that happens, you pull out the old "let's get back to subject" line.

You made a comment about people being better off in an urban environment - and that people uprooted from a traditional lifestyle would probably not wish to return to their villages. I was merely pointing out that uprooting people and destabilising their traditional lifestyles and replacing it with a bare existence in slums and shanty towns on the outskirts of cities "is not good enough".

Hi Poirot,

To the extent that what you write is relevant, and given the circumstances of that particular case, I agree with you.

Now, back to topic :)

Liberation for Afghan women will be closely related to changes in the Afghan economy, more towards an urban-based and professionally-skilled economy, and away from a backward, women-submissive rural economy. Hallelujah.

Cheers,

Joe