you
Hello, I'm Anilisa Suntzão and I'm here to answer your questions. Today we're going to talk about a very important topic that interests many Brazilians.
The right to land. Here at the studio, I have two very important guests when it comes to the right to land. Let's go to the first guest.
Plino de Arruda, Sampaio. It is formed by USP and master in International Economic Development at Cornell University, USA.
It works as a university teacher and public promoter. In the 1950s, it presided over the youth of the Catholic Student Union of São Paulo.
During the military regime, it had its chief deputy commander, Caçado, and exiled to Chile, where it worked as a UN consultant.
Back in Brazil in the 1970s, it presided over the Brazilian Association of Agrarian Reforms and helped to fund the PT.
In 1990, it was the PT candidate in the dispute over the government of São Paulo.
Thank you for your presence, Plino. It is a pleasure to have you here.
I would like to start by asking the following. With the victory of the PT in the last presidential elections,
all of Brazil has a great hope in relation to the issue of agrarian reform.
After three years, what is the balance that we can make?
Look, I have a very critical attitude in relation to this. I think the government of Lula is giving up.
It has not done the agrarian reform that it could have done. I am even willing to say this because I coordinated the team that made the plan.
In the way that we studied and saw that there was a possibility, we even made great support for the agrarian movements.
Everyone was with us and everyone approved the plan that we made. The plan that the team prepared there.
But unfortunately, the problem of the budgetary restriction is a brutality.
So, we have to keep this primary surplus huge. And then there is no money left for the program.
So, the goal was cut in half and not even that goal was made until now.
So, the balance that is made here...
It is a negative balance, unfortunately negative.
Let's go to our second guest. Deuweck Mateus is the State Director of the Movement without Land in São Paulo.
MST completed 21 years.
Its role as a social movement is to organize the poor in the field, to consent their rights and mobilize them so that they fight for changes.
The movement operates in 23 states fighting for agrarian reform and for the construction of a popular project for Brazil, with social justice and human dignity.
Thank you, Deuweck, for your presence too.
After 21 years of MST, do we have any progress in agrarian reform?
Of course, yes.
In fact, we understand that we are losing one more period in history that we had the opportunity to realize agrarian reform.
In any case, the struggle for land and agrarian reform in Brazil has a very long history and all that has been achieved is the achievements of the workers.
The organization of the workers, of the social movements in the field, is already a great achievement for the workers.
And we had advances in relation to the support of the society. The Brazilian society always supported the struggle for agrarian reform and the struggle for land.
Based in Franca, Batatais, Mojiminim, Caconde, São Simão and others, the entrants went after the uninhabited lands or inhabited by indigenous tribes,
destroying and burning portions of closed and closed forests for the plant of Rossa.
Most people hear a lot about agrarian reform, the agrarian reform, such as the agrarian reform.
Apparently it is a simple thing.
Few people with a lot of land, many people with little land.
But I would like to ask you to explain a little why there is so much difficulty in making this reform in a fair way.
Because apparently for people it is easy, isn't it?
Why don't you just divide and everyone is well with their piece of land?
It is because the few who have a lot of land are very powerful.
This is the problem, the power of the people.
Those who have a lot of land, the farmers, the farmers, the agrarian business, they have a lot of land.
There are few, but they have a lot of land.
What does it mean? That they have a lot of money, that they have a lot of power.
And therefore they finance campaign of deputies, they finance entities, they finance good part of the media.
So with this the agrarian reform is presented to the population in a negative way.
And they hold it.
Is that the problem? Don't you think that is it?
No doubt, in fact, the latifund in Brazil, which is a historical problem, the latifund in Brazil means power,
economic power, political power and cultural power.
We have a culture of private property, and in particular the great private property.
Because it is not possible to distribute the property of land or make agrarian reform,
even if in the economic model in general, it is a model that distributes the income to elevate the purchasing power of the population of the city,
so that the people of the city can eat more food.
And also an economic model that prioritizes the national economy, the national production, the domestic market and others.
So the content of this agrarian situation in Brazil was also guaranteed in the power of a parcel of these great latifunds with political charges.
So the problem in the agrarian reform in Brazil is more than an economic and social problem.
It is a political problem.
There is a strong correlation, still unfavorable for the realization of the agrarian reform in Brazil.
So this is one of the difficulties that the government has not yet managed to organize itself,
to create mechanisms to actually have the conditions for the realization of the agrarian reform.
Now, the important thing, even to relate this to human rights,
because the latifund in Brazil, historically, always represented the delay of the political point of view,
because with the latifund there is no democracy,
the latifund is still powerful in the region,
it is a delay of the economic point of view, because it delayed the development, especially in the field.
The productive forces did not develop as the property of the land is concentrated in the hands of few.
This miserable model, which has expelled and excluded the affected populations,
we are also victims.
Today, the lake of Akanwansi meets with 100% of its capacity,
still the affected are passing the siege and disputing the water with the animals in the barriers.
Still, from the cultural point of view, the rules inside are built by the great property of the land,
which today, unfortunately, even has a fusion today,
the so-called latifundiary, which is the great property of the land of the interior,
but with the industry, with the agro-industry and with the financial capital.
So we return to the situation of the reformation of Brazil.
Yes, but I think there were two important advances.
One is the MST.
That is, a very important advance is the MST.
It is the fact that a large number of rural workers without land
realized that they had to unite, that they had to make a strong organization and price for reform.
This was a fantastic advance.
And the other advance, Delvec, was the public opinion to accept the agrarian reform,
because when I was older, as you all realize,
when the first time I worked on the issue of agrarian reform, it was in the 60s.
And then the people did not have this support of the public opinion.
From 1950, the capital, first applied in coffee and culture,
starts to be transferred to the culture of sugar cane, which until then
constituted a marginal product in many properties.
This happened due to the increase in the demand for sugar in the international market,
especially after the Second World War,
in addition to government subsidies,
due to the policy of the IAA, Institute of Sugar and Alcohol,
created in 1933 during the dictatorship of the new state.
The landscape of the ancient certain unknown begins to suffer a great transformation.
Little by little, the plantations of sugar cane,
before destined to lands owned by the coffee,
due to minor altitudes, are spreading throughout the area,
dislodging the other products, until being imposed as a dominant culture.
The multicolor of coffee plants, rice, beans, corn, cotton, fruits, pastries,
after being little by little replaced by the monochromatic of the sugar cane.
Was it more difficult?
It was considered something like, imagine, now the farmers want to take the land,
and now not.
Now any research of opinion makes it clear that anyone you ask,
no, you have to do it in a big way, you have to give land to those who work.
Today it is a common place and it was the fruit of the work of the MST.
What is the main divergence between the MST and the Lula government?
The main divergence, oh, no, the implementation of the reform.
How does the MST act?
I think because, in fact, as Plínio put it,
all Brazilian society understands the importance of the implementation of the reform,
as well as a project of social, economic, cultural development for Brazil.
In other words, Brazil will not be involved, especially in the field, in the interior,
if it does not implement the reform.
Not in the field, not in the city.
Not in the city.
Now, this divergence, I mean, it comes exactly in this sense,
because the reform is for us, it must attend to these needs.
It cannot simply be a policy of settlement to resolve some social conflicts located.
The reform must be massive, exactly so that it resolves the fundamental problem
and brings social, economic and cultural development to the interior of Brazil.
No one can live alone.
All of us need each other.
We need, we have to be a group,
to work together, to talk together,
to talk about each other's problems,
and if there is a problem, if we talk, there is a solution for it.
We meet like a family,
we help each other when necessary,
and we go together, we are all friends.
It is important to say this here, to this people who are listening to us,
that the agrarian reform is very important for the city too.
Well, yes.
The inhabitants of the city sometimes say,
well, what do we have to do with the agrarian reform?
Because, as it is something there in the field, if you are living here,
you don't want to say anything to me, talk, you want to say a lot.
Reflect, reflect in the metropolis too.
Because if you had the population of the field,
living well in the field,
that is, feeding, educating, raising children,
well, don't come here, don't come.
The idea is that people come to the city, don't come,
come because there is no way to eat it, there is no way to exist.
So, in this case, there would be a lot of pressure
for housing, for transportation,
for urban services.
This is the first point.
Second point, if we had the population well organized in the field,
we could change the agricultural model of Brazil,
that is, we could change the way of producing.
And then we would have food, practically free,
that is, a very low price,
because it would have a huge production, huge food production.
So, we are showing here an area
used as a management of planting,
planting for the human food.
It is simply to have an idea that there is no need
to make even the devastation of the area,
to melt, to burn and to start the fire.
Here we plant the corn, we plant the cane,
we plant the corn, we plant the tomato,
we plant what we need to plant.
This is our procedure.
We don't burn anything.
Everything here serves protection and double the land itself.
Who produces food is the farmer.
Others produce export products.
It is the soy that goes away,
that occupies a huge space
and goes out to feed the good in Japan.
It is true, it is for that.
It is orange, it makes the juice, it expires.
Coffee, it expires.
So, we need to see a reform,
after everything is right,
a reform in the cultivation...
Exactly.
...of food for the Brazilians.
For the Brazilians, to reduce this here.
It doesn't mean that we can't export,
because Brazil is so big, so big,
that it can produce for everyone to eat here,
even if they don't want to.
And besides that, there is a lot to export.
But the system changes.
Here everything is natural.
There is no chemical product on the earth.
We have to have a soil manager,
doing the cover,
playing double the land.
It doesn't burn anything.
So, we took all this food
through the recommendations,
put it on the people's heads,
and we saw that this is the right one.
We worked without pesticides, without chemical products,
that our health improves,
for the whole family, for the whole consumer.
If you have a population of the field,
with a lot of money, with resources,
it will buy products that the city produces.
It will buy a camera to take pictures.
It's not like you're going to a camp today,
and it has a camera.
It's not expensive for it.
It will buy DVDs.
It will buy things that are produced in the city.
So, it will increase the work in the city.
But unfortunately,
the class of landowners,
it is too closed,
they don't give an opening.
Just like the miners,
the Paulistas also passed by
to ask for the legitimization of old posts
that later turned into big farms.
As the occupation of the lands was advancing
in the Northeast of Paulista,
the old owners were losing their roses
and the ability of subsistence
because of the arrival of mining families
with large swans and slaves
attracted by the news of unoccupied lands.
Don't leave.
In the next block,
we will continue the talk about the land right.
With Professor Plino de Arruda
and the director of MST,
Deuweck Mateus,
in addition to our television.
See you.
The latifund is rich,
the owner of that property is rich,
the costs of generating
or keeping poverty,
or keeping people in misery
in unacceptable conditions.
In the next block,
we will continue the talk about the land right.
In the next block,
we will continue the talk about the land right.
In the next block,
we will continue the talk about the land right.
In the next block,
we will continue the talk about the land right.
In the next block,
It's very ugly.
The right to answer is back.
Come with me to the studio.
Professor Plino de Arruda and the director of MST,
Delvec Mateus.
In your little screen, our television.
Reforma agraria is not a theme that is debated.
Isn't it curious?
We have several complex, important themes
that are debated by people in the boutique
or at home, at dinner.
Reforma agraria is not a theme that society discusses.
What do you think?
Do you think it should be like this or that it should be like this?
I think you have to have several forms of agriculture.
I think you have a commercial exploration of the land,
since it respects the social function of property,
since it doesn't exploit workers as slaves,
since it respects the environment.
I think it's possible and it's desirable that we have big companies,
big agricultural enterprises.
Now, I also think that we need to live with other forms,
with other models of agriculture,
agriculture of subsistence, family agriculture,
cooperative agriculture.
The property of the unproductive land is a scandal.
But what about the productive land?
It's very complicated.
Because for me, reforma agraria,
since it's an utopia, the ideal is that the productive,
rich, modern land was considered a problem.
Why? Because it's concentrative.
Because Brazil's problem is social, economic inequality.
And what's the point of having a success that benefits a very small group?
What's the point of that?
In the country, it generates losses.
But the return in the form of benefits is for a small group,
the owners, the nationalists, the investors,
while in society, even the people connected to that latifund,
but there at the bottom,
and all the others who are not included,
who want latifund as cold boys,
as temporary work,
don't benefit from this wealth.
In the public ministry, now we had in October, in Ribeirão Preto,
to cure the death of rural workers in the sugar cane sector.
Workers work, they harvest per day,
from 10 to 12 tons of cane.
Each worker collects 10, 12, 15 tons of cane per day.
And then they work, they don't do anything crazy, and die.
So, see the paradox of our Brazilian society.
We have an ultra-modern sector in terms of production,
and at the same time, it deals with its workers as if they were slaves.
I think these issues have to be faced,
instead of being criminalized, movement X or Y.
If this happens one day, I'm a little skeptical,
but I think we have to live in practice, in politics, in everyday life,
taking into account the ideal,
what would be ideal, the utopia.
In 1996, there was the massacre of the Carajás,
the Dourado dos Carajás, the media linked it,
and it showed how it happened,
and the whole population got stuck with this violent action of the police.
Do you think that the TV fulfills its role in the agrarian reform
and the injustices that happen involving this issue,
involving peasants, workers?
Look, I think we have two televisions.
In Brazil, there are two TV systems.
There is a commercial television, which are these 6 or 8 big televisions,
and there is a cultural and community television.
The cultural and community television, in my opinion,
is fulfilling its mission.
But the commercial television, absolutely,
it is not giving the coverage it had to give.
Don't you think so, Deuvec?
No doubt.
It is conditioning, it contextualizes, for example, in a wrong way.
Do you think that the television can interfere with the agrarian reform process?
I think that, in fact, the media in Brazil
have always been in defense of the powerful.
And in the case of the agrarian reform, it is different.
We could have, the media in the agrarian reform,
denounce the evil that latifund brings to Brazil.
And, mainly, the violence.
The latifund, by nature, is violent.
Why violent? Because it does not respect the worker,
it does not generate jobs, it does not respect the environment.
So, it commits crimes.
So, I think that this information ends up arriving in the Brazilian population.
Because this painted agrarian business,
in the media, in the television,
is like the world's greatest evil.
And, in fact, the agrarian business does not bring any result to the Brazilian people.
In other words, the agrarian business benefits half a dozen
of large multinational companies that produce monoculture for exportation,
which brings serious consequences to the Brazilian people,
especially in relation to the issue of land.
In other words, the agrarian business is not concerned with the generation of jobs,
the distribution of income in Brazil,
the agrarian business is not concerned with the food of the Brazilian people,
because it produces for exportation.
The agrarian business is not concerned with the environment,
meaning that the monoculture is degrading in the environment.
So, there are information that should come to the population
at least to debate this matter.
What is the benefit of the agrarian business?
What is the evil that the latifund can bring to the Brazilian people?
Not only for land,
because it seems that it is a dispute,
only for land with land owners.
This is not true.
In fact, there is a dispute of land owners,
of the large multinational companies, the agrarians,
with the Brazilian society.
Who loses?
Because they do not have the exact information of the Brazilian society.
And even when there is an occupation,
first of all, it is called an invasion,
which is an occupation.
Second, in general, the photographer
something broken,
something disordered
to give the impression that it was a violent thing
when we know it was not.
An idiot to think how to make the big media,
everyone has to come to the big capital.
Everyone has to come to the big capital.
In the big capital, we will only volume up the problems.
There is no solution.
So, we believe that in this agrarian reform process,
it is possible to have another vision
of what is living in the middle of the world.
The violence committed by the jaguns,
by the employees of the large owners,
or by the police.
Without land, it is defending itself.
And then it ends up becoming violent.
And the worst is that the positive things are not shown.
The good assessments that we have today in Brazil,
the issue of education, for example,
today we have very rich experiences
with regard to education.
We have a number of assessments.
We have several partnerships with universities
on the issue of health,
especially on preventive health.
On the issue of the environment,
the assessments today are doing a work
of environmental protection,
the production of seeds themselves.
These are initiatives and positive,
beautiful experiences
that could also be devoted to the population,
which would even be gaining the population in defense of these projects.
Unfortunately, this does not happen.
Normally, people interpret agrarian reform
only as a division of the land,
which is fundamental,
which is the basis of change,
is to change the structure of the property and agriculture.
But our reflection is that
it is necessary to build a new agricultural model,
not this North American model
that neoliberalism is trying to impose.
For justice today, it does not consider that this is a crime.
It does not consider that it is not a crime
to form a grid,
nor is it a crime to expel the process.
It is not a crime.
It considers that this is a social movement,
a form of oppression.
It is clear that you do not make a movement of this size,
without which one or the other can commit an abuse,
an excess.
But it cannot be debated
by the MST,
no determination in this sense.
And every time it happened
by a mistake to occupy a land,
I was witness.
Sometimes occupy a land
and the owner of the land,
the son of the owner of the land,
who met me on the phone,
said, look, ours is productive.
I called, I talked to the management,
they made a mistake,
they did not obey our order,
we took it out tomorrow and took it out.
That is, now it is impossible
to avoid one there,
in the middle of a Brazil of this size,
make a mistake.
But there is no fact of violence
against the farmer.
There is no.
And how has the public power
faced these
violent issues
in relation to occupation,
threats, slave labor?
Are you watching this?
In fact,
it is still very deficient,
even because it depends a lot
on Brazilian justice.
And justice in Brazil is a problem.
It is one of the most late powers
that we have in Brazil.
Among the three powers of justice
is the most late.
Culturally.
And, for example,
you mentioned the problem
of Dorado Carajás.
But recently this year
we had serious conflicts
in Minas Gerais.
We had, even a few days ago,
last week,
a crime in the state of Alagoas
and it was not even in an occupation
of land, that is, the director
was passing by the state and suddenly
he was murdered.
That is, the CPT,
that is, there are data today
that only during the Lula government
killed more than 30 workers
without land, leaders.
That is, the Latifund
continues to be violent.
He continues to commit crimes.
When
a poor person
invades an area,
builds a barrack where, theoretically,
he should not build,
it is with the greatest ease
that he destroys that barrack.
A tractor demolishes that.
They throw the furniture in a truck.
When a class
of high-power acquisition
builds where it should not,
you do not see this action
of the state.
You do not see this action so ready
by the judiciary, by the executive power
to demolish a house
with a swimming pool
because it was built in the lands of the Union.
This situation of conflict
that ends up being violent, is very useful
because, for example, there are areas
that are visited by the government
that are unproductive,
technically noticed,
and this ends up being
not stopped by the judiciary.
Two, three, four, up to five years.
So you create a local tension
between the workers
who are there,
reviving that land,
and between land owners
and their employees.
So the judiciary ends up having
a very big responsibility
in this conflict that ends up happening,
not to define the situation.
Exactly.
Now, why does this happen?
It is a situation
that the judiciary
will favor
the workers
because the land is unproductive.
So how do you act?
You are protecting the time.
It is a way of
making the workers disappear.
In the cases of disappropriation
in which the land is particular
and the government goes up.
The government
which is devolute
takes much longer.
It is impressive.
There are more than 60 years
that they are doing devolute
and it does not end.
And then it creates problems.
Music
Music
Music
We're going to talk a little bit more about the right to land with Professor Plino de Arruda
and the director of MST, Neuweck Matheus, don't go out of there.
If the destruction of the Mananciers of São Paulo continues, there will be no water left for everyone.
I lost my mind because I was drunk.
There's no such thing, I drank it all.
Here everyone drinks it and no one beats a woman, only you.
Drinking is not the excuse. Where there is violence, loses the woman who takes care of it, the children.
And you, the man who is the man, don't go out of there.
Without socialism in the media, it's very ugly.
The right to land, the theme of today's response rights.
With me in the studio, the director of MST, Neuweck Matheus and Professor Plino de Arruda.
Neuweck wanted to ask you the following.
The media divulges the invasions of MST, as we were talking about in the other block,
many times in a distorted way, which damages even the profile of the movement.
I would like to know how is the human side of MST?
Actually, the land occupations are organized by Brazilian workers.
I think MST is part of Brazilian society.
And what happens is that they fight where they are organized by their right,
which is the right to land, which is the right to work, the right to food.
And the commitment with this to benefit the Brazilian society, to benefit the Brazilian people.
And there is a process of solidarity between the workers of the government without land,
with the society in general. That is exactly why, fortunately, we receive the support of the Brazilian society.
Because society understands that the members of the movement are part of the Brazilian people,
and that our concern is to see a different country, a more dignified country,
a country where the people do not have so much hunger.
So this is exactly the way MST is concerned with the hunger of the Brazilian people.
A agricultural model where a new agrarian reform is made, of a new type,
which includes other elements that were not present in the past,
such as the issue of food sovereignty, that is, Brazil,
producing all the necessary food for its population.
Only then will we eliminate hunger, the need for farmers to also control the agri-industries,
to disseminate the agri-industries through cooperatives throughout Brazil.
As well as the right of farmers to produce and control the seeds,
which is another mechanism that multinationals have to explore.
The seeds, I think, are everything.
Because of food security, I think we should first raise the seed.
This relationship of the seed with us humans, the human being, is very strong, this connection.
It is research by our grandparents, research by our parents,
it has been researching for several years, this seed, choosing the best.
It is a great part of the population, without work, living under the poverty line,
and many people do not have anywhere to live.
So I think this is what is solidarity with the human being.
This is what the human being wants to see, is to worry about people's lives,
about people's food, at least with a house to live in.
I see that there is another aspect in the human side.
The human side is like this.
We imagine what the other man feels, what the other person feels.
So many times I have seen, because I am very connected to the agrarian earth,
many people who are not, who are against it, say,
how do I occupy a land?
Do I occupy the land of others?
Do you think this is a picnic?
Do you think it's easy?
Have you ever thought that it is to stay on a roadside,
on a lawnmower,
a lawnmower, a black lawnmower,
that does not let the heat pass?
It stays in the oven inside,
and you create a child on the roadside.
A 3-year-old child, 5-years-old, 7-years-old,
that you do not hold.
So there is this human side,
that is what we need,
there are 120,000 families like this.
This is what society would need,
if they put a little thought,
what would happen if I were there with my children?
Today we have a lot of experience,
including school and kindergarten,
which is a school that was recognized by the State,
that as the camp changes, the school also changes.
And they are educators prepared to work with these children.
Anyway, in the settings,
there is also a lot of concern with this issue of education,
and that is what I say,
today we are even developing partnerships
with technical schools at an average level,
and even with universities.
So the issue of education is fundamental,
from the camp to the settlement phase.
So let me tell you something that is impressive.
When there was El Dorado Carajáez,
the people were expelled,
two or three days later,
the judge went back to that place,
with everything burned,
with everything broken,
and began to redo.
At that time I was in the secretariat of the party,
so I asked an intellectual from the party,
a poet, a great poet,
and I asked him,
look, go there, you who are a poet,
a sentimentist,
you will describe a little what is the return of this person
to a broken camp.
And he made a beautiful text,
in which he put,
he told this fact that I consider fantastic,
that there were still small pieces of fumigant wood,
that had not yet finished with everything.
The person came down from the trucks,
and began to redo them,
the barracons, the barraques and such.
When he realized,
Ameldo Pereira,
when he realized,
he already had,
at one point,
the posters,
the children sitting,
and a class teacher.
The first thing,
and this is something that excites.
What we organize in the camp, without a doubt,
is the school.
And besides this concern,
we also have a concern
to teach from reality.
We have achieved,
this year,
350,000 families are on the ground,
and we are developing
agreements that are still
not representative,
in the sense of having a broad influence on society,
but we are proving that it is possible
to have a better life in the camp,
and people can improve their lives,
raise their families,
and progress to be happy.
We have a concern,
precisely,
to work with the reality of the camp,
to teach from the reality
that people live in the camp,
especially from the child,
which is for him to grow
with this feeling,
with this culture,
of enjoying the land,
enjoying the environment.
What about health?
Without a doubt,
health is also a concern,
and we work a lot
with the idea of preventive health.
Our proposal
of working with health,
is not to cure the disease,
it is to avoid the disease.
And how do you avoid the disease?
Exactly with the issue of food,
the issue of the environment,
hygiene,
are essential things,
and especially the information.
People avoid the disease,
to the extent that it is well informed.
And when you are going to do an occupation,
everyone thinks,
there is a democracy,
there is a hierarchy,
but can everyone put themselves?
Without a doubt,
in fact, the camp
is a great cooperation
between people.
And the coordination of the camp,
it does not come from outside,
it is constituted by the campers themselves,
who create commissions,
teams,
in all activities and needs
of that community,
which is there.
For example,
someone will take care of education,
someone will take care of health,
someone will take care of food,
someone will take care of cleaning,
hygiene,
someone will take care of security,
that is,
these coordination,
these teams form a coordination of the camp.
And this general coordination is that
they take care of all these activities,
which becomes routine
in the life of that community.
I remember a cover of a,
of a magazine,
which was about three or four years ago,
that showed,
here was a whole red background there,
it showed João Pedro Steadle,
in a totally red background there,
and he with his beard,
as if it were the own Incarnation of the Cappeta.
If at least the correct information was given,
even though people have their opinions about it,
some believe that it is not like that,
that you will do the agrarian reform,
that it is not by pressure, by invasion,
with disrespect to the law,
in some cases,
that you will be able to do the agrarian reform,
that you had to use,
exclusively the institutional path,
even though they had this point of view,
and they made the cover of this point of view,
if at least they informed correctly
the state of things,
it would be much better.
Regardless of the merit,
if the forms of reivindication are excessive,
if there is violence,
but I think the fact is that there is an approach,
that respects the intelligence of the reader,
the intelligence of the viewers,
is not to paint the subject there,
as a demon,
I think it is not,
it does not help at all,
a public discussion of ideas about the agrarian issue.
When there is an occupation that organizes the camp,
many people go and do not take food,
do not take medicine,
they go without anything,
because they do not have a situation,
so there is a process of cooperation and solidarity,
that everyone went there,
that is, everything that is achieved there,
that others take,
that other families take,
or that the society gives,
ends up being divided among all.
So this is very human,
that is, there are very beautiful things in a camp,
that this solidarity between people,
including the issue of security,
because it is a difficult period,
a period of a lot of concern.
They take care of themselves.
They take care of each other,
and you go from there, creating a community.
I think there is an interesting question,
because that's exactly where you get,
in the future, the settlements,
what is the difference between the settlements?
Exactly why?
This period of camp
ends up making people go through an organizational experience,
and when it comes to the settlement phase,
that it will produce the land,
it has already passed through this period,
and it has already had an organizational experience.
So this makes it easier to organize,
to produce, to use the insults,
the infrastructure to produce,
collectively, in an organized way.
So I think this example of humanity
is that we need to make all the Brazilian population
a witness, testimony.
Have you had the experience of staying in a new apartment for a while?
Yes, I have.
How much for us then?
I have already stayed and I said to you,
I loved it,
I even ate my lunch,
I ate lunch, I ate lunch, I slept,
I took a shower, I did normal activities,
and this, for example, needed to be counted.
I thought, TV could count it,
to show a simple, frugal life,
an ultra-lite life,
but extremely pleasant, extremely human.
This house, for example, that I stayed in,
was very modest, you can imagine,
but the food was healthy, it was everything.
The woman in general takes care of the chicken,
the cow, the milk,
these things, the woman and the man work
heavy in the pot.
And that's all.
I went to a seat, this one I thought was unique.
There are very modern things.
I went to a seat
in which the women decided that
no, we are also going to work on the earth.
This woman's story is washing clothes,
taking care of the child,
and said, no, this is not right.
So they made a collective kitchen.
And the lunch was made in a jar.
Everyone who came from the field sat there.
Those five or six ladies made the lunch.
Do you remember that?
It was a great place.
And you know, like a kilo.
There was even that little thing to warm up and such.
Everyone came there, served,
sat down, did a social circle.
The women who were working in the field
came to eat together.
And only at night they made a lunch at home.
There are fantastic experiences in the seat
that the television would like to show.
We are starting slowly, right?
Exactly.
No, as I said, there are two televisions.
The community, the cultural,
these are great televisions.
So they are doing a great job.
It's a pity that they don't have the resources,
the strength of the satellite
to send this image to everyone.
Because it was monopolized by a small group.
Just like on Earth, too.
But we are going to change this thing, right?
We have to make a serious reform on TV.
We have to make a serious reform on TV.
Finish with the latefungi of the TV.
Don't leave, we'll be right back.
How to help a blind person?
Don't hold it by the arm.
Offer your arm to hold it.
Inform all obstacles in front of you.
How to help a person who uses the wheel chair?
Get rid of these obstacles or ramps.
That way, the person won't fall in front of you.
We don't want only food, we want food,
fun and art.
We don't want only food, we want to go to any park.
We don't want only food, we want culture,
fun and ballet.
We don't want only food, we want life,
as life wants.
And this has to be a joke, learn to be happy.
Join this campaign for a childless world.
This is the last block of the right to answer
and it's time to warm up the emotions.
The talk today is about the right to Earth.
Let's take a look at what the Brazilians are most excited about on TV.
One of the things I saw on TV that made me more excited
was when there was that earthquake in Asia,
that killed a lot of people.
Scenes that are as strong as the live ones.
But what really surprised me was that attack
from the United States.
The one that hit me was the one that hit me hard.
What made you most excited on the Brazilian TV today?
In fact, we had important moments
and a lot of happiness on TV.
But what made me most excited was exactly
the fact that I loved Karajás,
that we were here in São Paulo
and we just saw the news on TV.
It really made us very shocked
and it was a very big emotion
between us, the MST friends who were here in São Paulo.
And for you, Pleno?
For me, you know what really made me so excited?
It was the scene of Herman Dorot,
all wet, dead on the road.
I knew Herman Dorot.
He was a 70-year-old woman.
That loose little body,
wet with the clothes of the owner of the body,
was something so shocking and strong.
I had a huge emotion.
What do we have in Brazil today?
Do you have a situation of disrespect to the law?
It's very big,
because of the owners of the land.
How did they get to be owners of the land?
Many times, they are owners of properties
invaded.
They have been there for decades,
and now they have all the effort,
work and investment.
But in the beginning, that land was invaded.
This happened in numerous places in Brazil
and it still happens.
There were public lands,
where people sat down,
took a stand,
expelled the Indians,
the quilombolas, the river populations,
the cabocles,
decimated the vegetal coverage,
approached and called them
immense properties that were not acquired.
Now you have a heritage built
for 100 years of hard work.
But in the beginning,
this heritage was invaded.
It was not built legitimately.
This was very important to say.
How do you have the courage
to kill an old woman
with cold blood
with the Gospel in her hand?
With the Bible in her hand?
Yes, with the Bible in her hand.
She was killed, she fell there.
That body was extended,
and I felt something strong.
It was really heavy for the population.
But I wanted to know
what the television brought with joy.
I liked to see the people
who loved the Gospel
put the police to eat.
I liked to see it a lot.
We already had the opportunity
to have materials about production,
about education.
The television was very important.
It gave us a joy to see
being broadcast to the Brazilian population.
In other moments,
I think the moment of great joy
for us, at least two very important,
were the two marches,
from 1997 to Brazil.
100,000 Brazilians
arrived there with us in Brazil.
That made us very emotional.
And now it's March of this year.
With 12,000 militants,
we went to Brazil.
It was a very big organization.
It was a city that changed every day.
A city that fed itself,
a city that participated.
And wherever we went,
there was contact with the population of the city.
As the television was broadcast,
we saw it.
Seeing it later,
we were excited to see
the working capacity of us to organize
and to know that we are part of this organization
and that there is an organization
that has the support of the Brazilian society.
Certainly, these images
excited all Brazilians.
Thank you very much, Plínio.
Can you send a message to the people
who are at home watching us?
Feel free to share the work
and send a message
optimistic to the Brazilians.
I'll start by saying the following.
The MST's motto is
Reforma Agrária,
a fight for everyone.
Reforma Agrária
is not just a fight
of those who don't have land.
It is a fight of all Brazilians
and Brazilians
who want to live in a decent,
fair,
prosperous,
self-developed country.
This is Reforma Agrária,
so that you are part of Reforma Agrária.
You can participate in this fight.
We will be partners
in everything that the government
has done to improve
the living conditions of the people.
We will maintain our autonomy
with the social movement
so that we have the capacity
to continue organizing the people
without social mobilization.
Because without social mobilization
nothing changes in this country.
Reforma Agrária is a project
that still needs to be done in Brazil
for the good of the population
of the Brazilian society.
I think that this commitment
of the workers of the countryside
with the city workers
is that it will still be possible
to achieve Reforma Agrária's implementation.
It will certainly help
to solve the great social problems
of the job,
the issue of hunger,
as you produce food,
the issue of the environment,
which is Reforma Agrária,
we will develop another production model
that will have the foundation
to protect the environment
and the biodiversity.
We have been surviving
for 16 years,
than we have been doing here.
We take care of the face,
the pepper,
the tomato,
the mother.
All these vegetables
that we didn't have before,
that now we have so much
for the consumption of the house,
to buy and sell.
We have a little bench
on the weekend
and we don't deliver
but the crosser,
we also take and sell.
We also sell
and the income is much better.
It will benefit
all the Brazilian population
and will certainly be
carried out with the participation
of the Brazilian society.
Do you have a website?
I do.
But I think you can try
www.mst.org
www.mst.org
www.mst.org
www.mst.org
www.mst.org
www.mst.org
www.mst.org
www.mst.org
www.mst.org
www.mst.org
www.mst.org
www.mst.org
www.mst.org
www.mst.org
www.mst.org
www.mst.org
www.mst.org
www.mst.org
www.mst.org
www.mst.org
I like all my work.
Go, go to the president there.
We'll see you at the next response.
Ciao.
Hello.
Hello.
Hello.
Hello.
Hello.
