The film Hotel Rwanda tells the story of Paul, a hotel manager, and his efforts to save hundreds of people from the Rwandan genocide. Paul spent much of his life building relationships and connections with influential Europeans and dignitaries through his hotel. When the untimely murder of the president leads to the mass genocide of Rwandan people, Paul shelters them and uses all his resources to help not only his family escape, but also all the refugees who stayed in his hotel. This movie exposes a lot of the realistic elements of when such a situation, which is unfortunately not so uncommon, that are often hidden or ignored by the outside world.
It was especially interesting to me that it was the Belgians who created the separation in the Rwandan population when they tried to colonize Rwanda after “winning” the territory from the Germans at the end of World War One. To control the Rwandans, the Belgians made two separate classes, the Hutus and the Tutsis. The determination of who belonged to each group was based off the width of their nose, because those with more narrow noses looked more European. Therefore while the Belgians occupied Rwanda, it was the Tutsis that were in power. Once the Belgians left Rwanda, the Hutus overthrew the Tutsi government because of the injustices they had incurred while in power. There have been numerous overthrows of each government, but when Hotel Rwanda starts, it is the Hutus who are in power. I think it is incredible that so much killing was done over a distinction that was forced on them many years ago by a foreign power.
Like in Maus I and II, family remains the most important when the genocide began. However, Paul seems to be an exception in that he helped his neighbors, and complete strangers as well, where in Maus, Vladek had to bribe even his cousins to help them. However, bribes remain an important tool in both situations, as well as connections.
I thought the role of the UN in the Rwandan situation was quite fascinating. Those who are actually there in the situation full heartedly believe in trying to save the refugees and stop the genocide, while those who are making decisions and who are well removed from the situation choose to remain only mildly involved. The UN brought in an intervention force, but only to help those who were not Rwandans. The UN colonel explained it to Paul in this way: “You're black. You're not even a nigger. You're an African.” I also thought the comment to the reporters that the UN is peacekeepers not peacemakers to be quite memorable. The outside world always seems to be slow to take action when they are not involved. And it’s not only those in power who have this attitude. A reporter described the standard reaction to footage of such horrific killing: “I think if people see this footage, they'll say Oh, my God, that's horrible. And then they'll go on eating their dinners.”
How can we sit back and ignore that this is happening around the world even today? Those who knew about the Holocaust, but did nothing about it were the ones saying ‘thank god it’s not happening to me.’ And as Maus portrays, eventually it will be you. If we continue to stand by and say nothing, then eventually we will face the same fate.
I think that this might provide some justification to the United States going to war with other countries because of the treatment of the citizens. People will argue ‘its not our job to be the world police. We need to just mind our own business and worry about ourselves.’ Well, if no one else is doing anything, if the UN is going to turn a blind eye even when its own people are crying out about the injustices, then who can be expected to do something?
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
One Nation "Under God"
Recently, controversy has been surrounding the Pledge of Allegiance and the “under God” phrase. Dr. Michael Newdow brought before the Supreme Court the argument that his daughter should not be required to listen to a pledge which promises “under God” because it conflicts with his own teachings to her, which is that there is no God. Atheist views have been strong in protecting freedom of religion, in their right to have no religion.
Many people argue that “under God” has become a part of the “fabric of society” and that it should not be taken out just out of respect to the Pledge, which shows the pride in being American of those who recite it. However, the phrase “under God” was not originally in the Pledge of Allegiance.
In the 1950s, during the Red Scare, there was a mad rush to add references of God to the American culture. With the mass fear of communism, Congress was quick to make changes in order to differentiate America from the other “godless” countries by adding “In God We Trust” to money and “under God” to the Pledge.
Dr. Newdow’s case was dismissed on the grounds that due to a custody battle, he was not in a position to speak for his daughter and her rights at the time. Had the case been actually tried, it would have been interesting to see how the Supreme Court would have applied the rather ambiguous “Lemon test.”
Well first of all, was “under God” added for a secular purpose? It was added out of fear. In order to be separate from the communists, we needed to be more religious. But being religious is not the only way to separate oneself from communism, and not having religion does not make one communistic. So I would say that there is no valid secular purpose for adding “under God.”
Secondly, does the primary effect advance or inhibit a religion? Well it forwards the views of those who believe in a God and inhibits those who do not believe there is a God. There are those who say that when we way “under God,” we don’t literally mean God. This would be blasphemous to those who do believe in a God and there are millions of people pledging allegiance “under God” but not really meaning God. So that could be considered inhibiting the beliefs of those who do believe in God. All around, this is clause is definitely being violated.
Lastly, does it foster “excessive entanglement with religion”? Based off the complexity of the previous two answers, I would definitely say that “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance definitely qualifies as “excessive entanglement.” So not one but all three parts of the Lemon test are being violated.
Therefore, I think that the religious references that have been built into our state, that were not originally intended by the Founding Fathers, need to be removed. We should go back to printing “E Pluribus Unum” on our money, and remove the “under God” phrase from the Pledge of Allegiance.
In the following video, Dr. Newdow addresses the Founding Fathers, their original intentions and an example of when they declared “under God” in an oath as unconstitutional. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA68TTISRi8
Carter’s main concern is that with the growing height of the wall of separation that people’s right to support their religion and share it with others will be inhibited because of the mounting push for protection of secularity. I think Carter has a valid concern. Often people’s opinions are discredited merely because they may be influenced by their religious views. Of course people will be affected by their religious views, but that does not make them invalid. There is a fine line between protecting secularity and inhibiting religion. The first amendment specifically protects religion, not secularity.
A lot of the decisions that have been made since the implementation of the Lemon test have been inconsistent. The exceptions that have been allowed are causing increasing entanglement with religion that is unnecessary. I wonder if the Supreme Court had released a ruling on the constitutionality of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, whether the ruling would have followed the Lemon test or if it would have become another exception because it has become a part of the “fabric of our society.”
Many people argue that “under God” has become a part of the “fabric of society” and that it should not be taken out just out of respect to the Pledge, which shows the pride in being American of those who recite it. However, the phrase “under God” was not originally in the Pledge of Allegiance.
In the 1950s, during the Red Scare, there was a mad rush to add references of God to the American culture. With the mass fear of communism, Congress was quick to make changes in order to differentiate America from the other “godless” countries by adding “In God We Trust” to money and “under God” to the Pledge.
Dr. Newdow’s case was dismissed on the grounds that due to a custody battle, he was not in a position to speak for his daughter and her rights at the time. Had the case been actually tried, it would have been interesting to see how the Supreme Court would have applied the rather ambiguous “Lemon test.”
Well first of all, was “under God” added for a secular purpose? It was added out of fear. In order to be separate from the communists, we needed to be more religious. But being religious is not the only way to separate oneself from communism, and not having religion does not make one communistic. So I would say that there is no valid secular purpose for adding “under God.”
Secondly, does the primary effect advance or inhibit a religion? Well it forwards the views of those who believe in a God and inhibits those who do not believe there is a God. There are those who say that when we way “under God,” we don’t literally mean God. This would be blasphemous to those who do believe in a God and there are millions of people pledging allegiance “under God” but not really meaning God. So that could be considered inhibiting the beliefs of those who do believe in God. All around, this is clause is definitely being violated.
Lastly, does it foster “excessive entanglement with religion”? Based off the complexity of the previous two answers, I would definitely say that “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance definitely qualifies as “excessive entanglement.” So not one but all three parts of the Lemon test are being violated.
Therefore, I think that the religious references that have been built into our state, that were not originally intended by the Founding Fathers, need to be removed. We should go back to printing “E Pluribus Unum” on our money, and remove the “under God” phrase from the Pledge of Allegiance.
In the following video, Dr. Newdow addresses the Founding Fathers, their original intentions and an example of when they declared “under God” in an oath as unconstitutional. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA68TTISRi8
Carter’s main concern is that with the growing height of the wall of separation that people’s right to support their religion and share it with others will be inhibited because of the mounting push for protection of secularity. I think Carter has a valid concern. Often people’s opinions are discredited merely because they may be influenced by their religious views. Of course people will be affected by their religious views, but that does not make them invalid. There is a fine line between protecting secularity and inhibiting religion. The first amendment specifically protects religion, not secularity.
A lot of the decisions that have been made since the implementation of the Lemon test have been inconsistent. The exceptions that have been allowed are causing increasing entanglement with religion that is unnecessary. I wonder if the Supreme Court had released a ruling on the constitutionality of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, whether the ruling would have followed the Lemon test or if it would have become another exception because it has become a part of the “fabric of our society.”
After Seeing Rwanda
My first thought after seeing Hotel Rwanda was that this movie was very well done. I felt very involved with the situation and the characters. I also felt that this movie was hard to watch. What I mean is that the setting of the movie and the tone of the movie gave me no hints about the outcome of the story, other than that it was a survivor’s story. Normally a story is generic and you can figure out what will happen at any moment but this survivor’s story was so crazy that it wasn’t predictable. Not knowing the plot, I was always half expecting any of the main characters to die. To me this kind of reflects the feeling of the actual situation in Rwanda. No one knew what would happen next or who would survive.
Genocide
Art Spiegelman’s Pulitzer Prize winning graphic novels, Maus I & II, are about the Holocaust of the Jews in WWII. Spiegelman tells his father’s story of his WWII experience, from handing over his business to being sent to Auschwitz death camp. It is the story of one of the world’s worst genocides from a victim’s point of view.
The film Hotel Rwanda is a similar tale about a hotel owner in the midst of a different genocide. Paul, the hotel owner, risks everything he has, including his life, to save the lives of over one thousand refugees by sheltering them in his hotel. This genocide involves the Hutu’s and the Tutsi’s, two racial groups in the country fighting an old battle of superiority. When the Hutu’s become the majority they begin to slaughter the Tutsi’s with the intent of wiping them out. Both of the above cases happened very far apart, and while they are different in many ways, they are also very similar. The big question is, what makes genocide?
Propaganda is a big factor in most genocide situations. Propaganda tells the people what to believe, so it is easier for them to kill without feeling. In Rwanda, the main propaganda came from the radio station that constantly told the Hutu’s that they were superior, and encouraged them to protect what was rightfully theirs from the rebel Tutsis who would try to kill them. It was very similar in Germany, but it was more widespread because an international war was also being fought. The Nazis also used the radio, but they also used newspapers and newsreels to completely bash the Jews. The media is a very effective way to transmit propaganda to the people, because as we all can tell even today, people will believe anything they see on TV.
Another ingredient of genocide is nationalism. This rallies the people around the cause and silences dissent. In the cases of Rwanda and the Holocaust, the nationalism was embodied in the phrase, “retaking what is ours.” Even if this is not true, if the country rallies around beliefs that support it, reality doesn’t matter. The Hutu’s believed that they had been oppressed by the Tutsi’s in the past and that this “revenge” of sorts would prevent them from ever coming to power again, leaving it rightfully to the Hutu people. Hitler and the Nazi’s did an incredible job of convincing the German people that the Jews were responsible for all their problems. This was quite a feat, but it helped that nearly all the German people were impoverished, and Jews owned many of the businesses. The Nazis could portray the Jews as outsiders, and when their shops were ransacked, it could be said that the Germans were taking back their towns and economy from the Jews.
Perhaps the most important aspect of genocide is dehumanization. This allows people to kill, without feeling, unprecedented amounts of people for no real reason. Through dehumanization, the victims of genocide are made less than human in the eyes of the oppressors. In Rwanda, this was linked directly through the propaganda, because the average citizen was the one taking to the streets with a machete. The radio announcer referred to the Tutsis as “Tutsi Cockroaches,” and before long, the “Tutsi” part came off, leaving only “Cockroach.” The Tutsis have been reduced to insects. They are now disgusting the oppressors, making it all the easier to eliminate them. In Germany, it was not the people but the army that was doing the exterminating. Once the Jews were in the camps, the Germans did things like taking away the Jews names and assigning them numbers in order to dehumanize. They also shaved all their heads and gave them identical clothing, making them completely uniform. By taking away all Jewish individuality, it was much easier for the soldiers to kill without remorse or regret.
Propaganda, nationalism, and dehumanization are present in most genocide, and are very important to recognize because every country is susceptible. They say history repeats itself, and they have been correct, but we can try to do everything to prevent this from happening again (or more than it already is, see http://www.savedarfur.org/content).
The film Hotel Rwanda is a similar tale about a hotel owner in the midst of a different genocide. Paul, the hotel owner, risks everything he has, including his life, to save the lives of over one thousand refugees by sheltering them in his hotel. This genocide involves the Hutu’s and the Tutsi’s, two racial groups in the country fighting an old battle of superiority. When the Hutu’s become the majority they begin to slaughter the Tutsi’s with the intent of wiping them out. Both of the above cases happened very far apart, and while they are different in many ways, they are also very similar. The big question is, what makes genocide?
Propaganda is a big factor in most genocide situations. Propaganda tells the people what to believe, so it is easier for them to kill without feeling. In Rwanda, the main propaganda came from the radio station that constantly told the Hutu’s that they were superior, and encouraged them to protect what was rightfully theirs from the rebel Tutsis who would try to kill them. It was very similar in Germany, but it was more widespread because an international war was also being fought. The Nazis also used the radio, but they also used newspapers and newsreels to completely bash the Jews. The media is a very effective way to transmit propaganda to the people, because as we all can tell even today, people will believe anything they see on TV.
Another ingredient of genocide is nationalism. This rallies the people around the cause and silences dissent. In the cases of Rwanda and the Holocaust, the nationalism was embodied in the phrase, “retaking what is ours.” Even if this is not true, if the country rallies around beliefs that support it, reality doesn’t matter. The Hutu’s believed that they had been oppressed by the Tutsi’s in the past and that this “revenge” of sorts would prevent them from ever coming to power again, leaving it rightfully to the Hutu people. Hitler and the Nazi’s did an incredible job of convincing the German people that the Jews were responsible for all their problems. This was quite a feat, but it helped that nearly all the German people were impoverished, and Jews owned many of the businesses. The Nazis could portray the Jews as outsiders, and when their shops were ransacked, it could be said that the Germans were taking back their towns and economy from the Jews.
Perhaps the most important aspect of genocide is dehumanization. This allows people to kill, without feeling, unprecedented amounts of people for no real reason. Through dehumanization, the victims of genocide are made less than human in the eyes of the oppressors. In Rwanda, this was linked directly through the propaganda, because the average citizen was the one taking to the streets with a machete. The radio announcer referred to the Tutsis as “Tutsi Cockroaches,” and before long, the “Tutsi” part came off, leaving only “Cockroach.” The Tutsis have been reduced to insects. They are now disgusting the oppressors, making it all the easier to eliminate them. In Germany, it was not the people but the army that was doing the exterminating. Once the Jews were in the camps, the Germans did things like taking away the Jews names and assigning them numbers in order to dehumanize. They also shaved all their heads and gave them identical clothing, making them completely uniform. By taking away all Jewish individuality, it was much easier for the soldiers to kill without remorse or regret.
Propaganda, nationalism, and dehumanization are present in most genocide, and are very important to recognize because every country is susceptible. They say history repeats itself, and they have been correct, but we can try to do everything to prevent this from happening again (or more than it already is, see http://www.savedarfur.org/content).
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Government Funding
In “The Separation of Church and State,” Carter raises an interesting point of view about religion and the government. Mainly he asserts that over time we have forgotten that separation of church and state is supposed to protect religion from the state rather than how we think of it today as protecting the state from religion. Carter says separation of church and state does not ban religiously motivated people from being active in government.
Early in his essay, Carter provides a scenario about a Christian minister who could not receive any government funding for his drug-rehabilitation program. In this program the staff prayed for the dug abusers and taught the abusers to pray as well. This example reminds me of a program to help the homeless in Dayton. My sister volunteered there with my church youth group once or twice. This program is called the “Gospel Mission,” and homeless people can get a hot meal if they go to the church service. There are also basketball courts and other activities the people can enjoy. Now I am not sure if this organization receives government funding or not, but as Carter addressed and as we discusses a little in class, should programs like this receive government funding?
Obviously the church group that runs the program is religiously motivated, and the homeless people must go to the church service if they want a meal there. But where’s the harm in this? I argue that programs such as the Gospel Mission, or the drug-rehabilitation program that Carter talks about, should be able to receive government funding. These types of programs, in my opinion, do no harm. The programs like the Gospel Mission get homeless people off the streets, into a safe warm building, and provide a good meal and relaxing atmosphere. While they have to go to a church service, I see no harm in this either. There are other places that these people could get a meal, and they choose to come to that place anyways. Still, some of the main ideas in the Christian faith encourage people to be kind to others, and to not murder people or steal. Where is the harm in that?
I understand the argument that if the government funds a Christian based program, then aren’t they hindering the success of another religion? But I do not really believe this is a valid argument. As long as the government would provide funding for all programs that help out the general good of its citizens, without discriminating between what religions each program is motivated by, I feel like this is only advancing each religion and the good of the government’s people.
Early in his essay, Carter provides a scenario about a Christian minister who could not receive any government funding for his drug-rehabilitation program. In this program the staff prayed for the dug abusers and taught the abusers to pray as well. This example reminds me of a program to help the homeless in Dayton. My sister volunteered there with my church youth group once or twice. This program is called the “Gospel Mission,” and homeless people can get a hot meal if they go to the church service. There are also basketball courts and other activities the people can enjoy. Now I am not sure if this organization receives government funding or not, but as Carter addressed and as we discusses a little in class, should programs like this receive government funding?
Obviously the church group that runs the program is religiously motivated, and the homeless people must go to the church service if they want a meal there. But where’s the harm in this? I argue that programs such as the Gospel Mission, or the drug-rehabilitation program that Carter talks about, should be able to receive government funding. These types of programs, in my opinion, do no harm. The programs like the Gospel Mission get homeless people off the streets, into a safe warm building, and provide a good meal and relaxing atmosphere. While they have to go to a church service, I see no harm in this either. There are other places that these people could get a meal, and they choose to come to that place anyways. Still, some of the main ideas in the Christian faith encourage people to be kind to others, and to not murder people or steal. Where is the harm in that?
I understand the argument that if the government funds a Christian based program, then aren’t they hindering the success of another religion? But I do not really believe this is a valid argument. As long as the government would provide funding for all programs that help out the general good of its citizens, without discriminating between what religions each program is motivated by, I feel like this is only advancing each religion and the good of the government’s people.
Thoughts on Carter
Whenever I hear a debate about separation of church and state, it seems like the debate is usually framed as religion vs. atheism. It’s a lot more complicated than that. Even though 81 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christian (American Religious Identification Survey), that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are practicing Christians. My parents never go to church, but I am almost certain that they would answer “Christian” on a survey. They do believe in some Christian ideas, and there’s not really anything else that they would identify with. I think there is a big difference between being an active member of religious organization and having some religious beliefs. Also, many people are hesitant to identify themselves as nonreligious. They’re even less likely to say that they are agnostic or atheist. I think those words, especially, atheist, seem to imply that the person is “against” religion and anything that has to do with it. We tend to think of atheists as the kind of people who want “in God we trust” removed from currency. If you’re an agnostic or atheist politician, you would probably avoid saying so. It may be better to not say anything at all than lose a large numbers of voters by saying you don’t believe in God. I think this is interesting because there are lot of areas in which you would be instantly less credible if you say that you are religious.
Either way, I think that the extent to which a person is religious (not just whether they are or not) plays a big role in how they perceive the issue of separation of church and state. Some people, while they may not be very religious, wouldn’t mind if the government funded faith-based organizations. But I guess they would mind if the program conflicted with their own beliefs…and that could very easily happen. Then there’s the question of whether the government funding religious programs with inherent biases. This is difficult question, because I don’t know how the government could do that without promoting one religion over another. It might be easier for the government to exclude religion completely.
Still, that’s probably not even possible because voters and politicians do have religious beliefs. Carter says that “faith may be so intertwined with personality that it is impossible to tell when one is acting, or not acting, from religious motive.” That may be true. Sometimes, it may not even matter if someone is motivated by their religion. As long as the program promotes something good and it’s not forcing anyone to follow religions when they don’t want to, it’s probably okay. While someone’s religious beliefs may influence their decision to support certain programs and legislation, their religion probably shouldn’t be the only basis for their opinion. They need to have other logical reasons for making such decisions, instead of doing something like claiming that the Bible says it’s right. I don’t know how often that actually happens. Either way, the separation of church and state isn't an "all or nothing" issue, because people don't necessarily have "all or nothing" religious beliefs. The way we deal with the religion and the state should be a compromise that reflects this.
Either way, I think that the extent to which a person is religious (not just whether they are or not) plays a big role in how they perceive the issue of separation of church and state. Some people, while they may not be very religious, wouldn’t mind if the government funded faith-based organizations. But I guess they would mind if the program conflicted with their own beliefs…and that could very easily happen. Then there’s the question of whether the government funding religious programs with inherent biases. This is difficult question, because I don’t know how the government could do that without promoting one religion over another. It might be easier for the government to exclude religion completely.
Still, that’s probably not even possible because voters and politicians do have religious beliefs. Carter says that “faith may be so intertwined with personality that it is impossible to tell when one is acting, or not acting, from religious motive.” That may be true. Sometimes, it may not even matter if someone is motivated by their religion. As long as the program promotes something good and it’s not forcing anyone to follow religions when they don’t want to, it’s probably okay. While someone’s religious beliefs may influence their decision to support certain programs and legislation, their religion probably shouldn’t be the only basis for their opinion. They need to have other logical reasons for making such decisions, instead of doing something like claiming that the Bible says it’s right. I don’t know how often that actually happens. Either way, the separation of church and state isn't an "all or nothing" issue, because people don't necessarily have "all or nothing" religious beliefs. The way we deal with the religion and the state should be a compromise that reflects this.
Thoughts on Germany and Jew's Survival
After seeing the sheer amount of evidence on the Holocaust and seeing the detail contained in Maus, I do find it hard to believe that someone today would be able to deny the Holocaust. Maus and Maus II is only one account of a survivor’s story among many. What I can see, however, is why the Holocaust is so difficult to imagine. I mean, the extermination of the Jews was conducted so secretly and at such a random impulse that not even the Jews knew if it was the truth. It would have been a different story if the Germans and Jews had some sort of strained relationship, or were already at arms with each other, but Germany had no reason to do this.
Germany was overwhelmed with fighting in WWII yet continued to keep the camps going. Carter said that Germany lost the war because of its involvement with the camps. This involvement defies all logic of war; the Germans were sending troops and supplies to the camps. The situation makes no sense because Germany was fighting for two agendas, both of which seemed to hold equal importance and deplete Germany’s resources.
People insist as well that no one would be capable of doing to another person what Germans did to Jews, but I think everyone knows that there is something in all of us that could push us to become just as bad. For example, a parent would kill to save a child. Here, http://www.prisonexp.org/30years.htm, is a link to the Stanford Prison Experiment website. Experiments like this one have shown, beyond just speculation, that yes, circumstances may push someone to behave violently or to become oppressive.
I also believe that the belief that Jews didn’t fight back against the Germans is partially untrue. Yes, of course the Jews didn’t begin a war with the Germans but they were survivors. It is my opinion that the Jew’s fight for life was a valiant, although individual, war against the Germans. Many Jew’s never lost hope no matter what happened to them, hope was the Jew’s greatest trait and constant motivation. Every Holocaust story that I hear makes me think that I might not have had the strength to do the things that these people did and survive the things that these people did.
Germany was overwhelmed with fighting in WWII yet continued to keep the camps going. Carter said that Germany lost the war because of its involvement with the camps. This involvement defies all logic of war; the Germans were sending troops and supplies to the camps. The situation makes no sense because Germany was fighting for two agendas, both of which seemed to hold equal importance and deplete Germany’s resources.
People insist as well that no one would be capable of doing to another person what Germans did to Jews, but I think everyone knows that there is something in all of us that could push us to become just as bad. For example, a parent would kill to save a child. Here, http://www.prisonexp.org/30years.htm, is a link to the Stanford Prison Experiment website. Experiments like this one have shown, beyond just speculation, that yes, circumstances may push someone to behave violently or to become oppressive.
I also believe that the belief that Jews didn’t fight back against the Germans is partially untrue. Yes, of course the Jews didn’t begin a war with the Germans but they were survivors. It is my opinion that the Jew’s fight for life was a valiant, although individual, war against the Germans. Many Jew’s never lost hope no matter what happened to them, hope was the Jew’s greatest trait and constant motivation. Every Holocaust story that I hear makes me think that I might not have had the strength to do the things that these people did and survive the things that these people did.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Police Brutality
Personally, I am not a huge fan of the police. I have never been arrested but I have been pulled over or stopped when walking home from my friends house one day. A coach from my highschool had called because someone was attempting to break in to a Tire Man down the street from my house. My friend was walking me home and we saw 3 police cars on the main road. We continued to walk and one pulled up alongside of us and made us stop. We were standing in my front yard and they would not let me get my mom or do anything for that matter. They did not tell us why they were pulling us over or anything at all. To me, the officers were a bit friendly to my friend they were not. He is 6'4 and black and they treated him way different then they treated me. When putting us into the police car he was having a hard time because he is so tall and the seats are so far back but they kept shoving him and pushing him into the car. He tried explaining but the two officers kept telling him to shut up and get in the car. When another car showed up I was put into that one. As they took him out of the car they continuously kept threatening to tazer him although he was doing exactly as they said. The next night his brother was hanging out with some minors and it was past curfew although he was the only one who was 18 years old, the cops let everyone else go and kept him for an hour or so. Once again he did nothing wrong but he was the only black kid out of six. In both incidents, the cops showed major racism and I think this is wrong. However, that is exactly what happened back then. The Jews got stereotyped and even if they no longer practiced the Jewish faith, they were still considered a part of the Jewish race and treated poorly. So although police aren’t as bad as the Germans were back then, if nothing is done about the cruel and unjust treatment of the police, it could lead up to the point where an officer may seriously injure or even kill a person and it will be ok because it was self defense or some other BS excuse for their actions.
Maus and Contemporary Connections
Art Spiegelman's Maus is a riveting account of the Holocaust and its aftermath. The tale recounts the struggle of Vladek Spiegelman living with his family in Sosnowiec in the late 1930s and his tragic odyssey during the war which ultimately led him to Auschwitz. Throughout the story, Art also confronts his complicated and difficult relationship with his father. Vladek is very stingy, and he and Art do not always see eye to eye.
A major theme in Maus is not just the tragedy of the Holocaust and its effect on those who survived it, but also its impact on those who did not live through it. This is highlighted near the end of the first book when Art calls his father a murderer for having destroyed Anja's diaries. Art wanted the diaries to complete his work and their destruction also cuts him off of any chance of finding out the truth about his mother.
The use of animals in the story is very controversial. I believe Spiegelman is using the animals in a satirical manner. The animals are based off of how the Germans depicted certain nationalities: Polish are pigs, Jews are mice, Americans are dogs, and the Germans are cats. The use of animals serves to prove how ridiculous the entire tragedy really is. It also shows that the Holocaust degraded the victims and perpetrators to less than human status.
I think that when looking for contemporary connections we should be careful in our selection. The Holocaust systematically killed 10 million people because they were perceived as flawed, different, and imperfect. That being said, there are a few examples that I think have some similarities.
First, I am reminded of the partition of India in 1947. After India was granted independence from Britain, it was divided into India and Pakistan, which eventually splintered into East Pakistan, West Pakistan, and Bangladesh. The partition forced the upheaval of at least 15 million people. Over 7 million Muslims left India for Pakistan and about the same number of Hindus moved to India from Pakistan. During this massive migration, violence and ethnic cleansing accounted for what is estimated as at least 1 million deaths.
Another possible contemporary connection is the Rwandan genocide of 1994. The Rwandan Genocide was a mass extermination of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda. The killings were carried out by two extremist Hutu militia groups over the course of 100 short days. Over 500,000 Tutsis and thousands moderate Hutus died in the genocide. Some estimates place the deaths at closer to one million. Today someone in class said that it is important to talk about events like the Holocaust so that history does not repeat itself. In the case of Rwanda, it would seem that history is repeating itself in Darfur.
Finally, I would like to close with a quote from Maus that caught my attention. In the first book on page 122, Anja is distressed and crying about how the family has broken apart. Vladek consoles her by saying that "to die, it's easy but you have to struggle for life!" This is very similar to the famous Frederick Douglass quote, "If there is no struggle, there is no progress."
A major theme in Maus is not just the tragedy of the Holocaust and its effect on those who survived it, but also its impact on those who did not live through it. This is highlighted near the end of the first book when Art calls his father a murderer for having destroyed Anja's diaries. Art wanted the diaries to complete his work and their destruction also cuts him off of any chance of finding out the truth about his mother.
The use of animals in the story is very controversial. I believe Spiegelman is using the animals in a satirical manner. The animals are based off of how the Germans depicted certain nationalities: Polish are pigs, Jews are mice, Americans are dogs, and the Germans are cats. The use of animals serves to prove how ridiculous the entire tragedy really is. It also shows that the Holocaust degraded the victims and perpetrators to less than human status.
I think that when looking for contemporary connections we should be careful in our selection. The Holocaust systematically killed 10 million people because they were perceived as flawed, different, and imperfect. That being said, there are a few examples that I think have some similarities.
First, I am reminded of the partition of India in 1947. After India was granted independence from Britain, it was divided into India and Pakistan, which eventually splintered into East Pakistan, West Pakistan, and Bangladesh. The partition forced the upheaval of at least 15 million people. Over 7 million Muslims left India for Pakistan and about the same number of Hindus moved to India from Pakistan. During this massive migration, violence and ethnic cleansing accounted for what is estimated as at least 1 million deaths.
Another possible contemporary connection is the Rwandan genocide of 1994. The Rwandan Genocide was a mass extermination of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda. The killings were carried out by two extremist Hutu militia groups over the course of 100 short days. Over 500,000 Tutsis and thousands moderate Hutus died in the genocide. Some estimates place the deaths at closer to one million. Today someone in class said that it is important to talk about events like the Holocaust so that history does not repeat itself. In the case of Rwanda, it would seem that history is repeating itself in Darfur.
Finally, I would like to close with a quote from Maus that caught my attention. In the first book on page 122, Anja is distressed and crying about how the family has broken apart. Vladek consoles her by saying that "to die, it's easy but you have to struggle for life!" This is very similar to the famous Frederick Douglass quote, "If there is no struggle, there is no progress."
Maus Discussion
One question asked today in class was why are the races portrayed the way they were in Maus. I think they made the Nazi’s mice not only because the cats, which were the Germans, eat the mice but also because they are small and to most people disgusting. We lay out traps to kill mice that run around the house. Back then, all Jews were seen as "dirty creatures" who had no right to a good life like everyone else. The Germans destroyed their identity, tore apart their families, and ruined their homes. By making the Jews mice I think Art Spigelman showed readers how the Germans really did look at the Jews. They saw them as creatures they could walk all over and do as they pleased with.
As for people denying the Holocaust, someone mentioned in class people don’t want to believe people are really that cruel. It is hard to think that one race could really kill so many people and not feel bad about it and that everyone else could just stand around and let it happen. However, there is way to much evidence and pictures and so forth to even question whether it did or not. Holocaust survivors would not make up a story that detailed and troublesome. When I went to the Holocaust museum and heard this lady tell us her story, I just sat there feeling sorry for her. I know that may be a bad thing but I just thought what she experienced was horrible. I don’t know if I could have made it. It definitely makes you question how people can be so cruel and cold hearted, and why one race thinks they are so much better then another. The Germans thought they were so much better and that they had the right to destroy another whole race.
A third question I want to respond to is why didn’t the Jews fight back? Although at one point in time they out numbered the Germans, they didn’t fight back because they didn’t think that was the answer. I’m sure they didn’t think things were that bad and that if they did as they were told everything would be ok. But there did come a point when they knew how bad things were and still didn’t do anything. If they fought back would it really have made a difference? I don’t think so. I’m curious to what others think about that. Could the number of Jews killed been cut down if they would have fought back and others would have stepped in to help?
As for people denying the Holocaust, someone mentioned in class people don’t want to believe people are really that cruel. It is hard to think that one race could really kill so many people and not feel bad about it and that everyone else could just stand around and let it happen. However, there is way to much evidence and pictures and so forth to even question whether it did or not. Holocaust survivors would not make up a story that detailed and troublesome. When I went to the Holocaust museum and heard this lady tell us her story, I just sat there feeling sorry for her. I know that may be a bad thing but I just thought what she experienced was horrible. I don’t know if I could have made it. It definitely makes you question how people can be so cruel and cold hearted, and why one race thinks they are so much better then another. The Germans thought they were so much better and that they had the right to destroy another whole race.
A third question I want to respond to is why didn’t the Jews fight back? Although at one point in time they out numbered the Germans, they didn’t fight back because they didn’t think that was the answer. I’m sure they didn’t think things were that bad and that if they did as they were told everything would be ok. But there did come a point when they knew how bad things were and still didn’t do anything. If they fought back would it really have made a difference? I don’t think so. I’m curious to what others think about that. Could the number of Jews killed been cut down if they would have fought back and others would have stepped in to help?
Carter raises some questions
As Carter explores the First Amendment, he highlights that they are crafted to give maximum freedom to the religious. A question might be asked that if a majority in the nation are Christian and are creating laws, upholding constitution, enforcing laws, etc. wouldn't that imply that they already have a great deal of power and influence? How do the majority's viewpoint affect others who hold "minority" faith views?
How could state's negatively influence religions if they give money to particular religions?
Does the state give money to all religions or just Christian ones? Muslims? Taoists? Wiccans? Who decides?
If the government has anti-bias laws, yet some faiths have inherent biases, should the state fund them? For example, Evangelicals believe homosexuality is evil and some openly discriminate against gays, should they get funding for other programs? Again, who reviews and decides?
Many argue the state should listen to their religious constituents and instill more Biblical law -- whose interpretation of those laws should we follow? Abstinence only education in schools comes from "faith" groups -- no sex ed? How about evolution as some faiths reject the theory? Some faiths reject the theory that earth revolves around the sun -- should the state listen to them? If we allow the state to be run/significantly influenced by some one's faith, who gets to decide which faith and to what degree or what "intrusions" are acceptable?
He argues that legislators' "faith may be so intertwined with personality that it is impossible to tell when one is acting, or not acting, from religious motive" and later argues that the Establishment Clause "might end up not anti establishments but anti religion." Are religious people afraid to talk about their faiths? Do politicians share their faith experiences or "hide" from them? I have heard many politicians expressing their Protestant, Catholic, Evangelical, Mormon, and even Muslim faiths, but yet to hear a politician say (s)he is an atheist or agnostic -- what might that suggest? If the majority of the nation is religious, Christian, how can they be repressed? Who is repressing them?
Scenerio: As a Catholic, even my father has said that I am in a "cult". His interpretation and application of faith are significantly different than mine -- If the area is prodominantly Catholic, and it influences local laws, should he have to follow them?
Now consider the agnostic or atheist etc., should that person be denied sex ed because some people of faith disagree with it due to their religious background?
How could state's negatively influence religions if they give money to particular religions?
Does the state give money to all religions or just Christian ones? Muslims? Taoists? Wiccans? Who decides?
If the government has anti-bias laws, yet some faiths have inherent biases, should the state fund them? For example, Evangelicals believe homosexuality is evil and some openly discriminate against gays, should they get funding for other programs? Again, who reviews and decides?
Many argue the state should listen to their religious constituents and instill more Biblical law -- whose interpretation of those laws should we follow? Abstinence only education in schools comes from "faith" groups -- no sex ed? How about evolution as some faiths reject the theory? Some faiths reject the theory that earth revolves around the sun -- should the state listen to them? If we allow the state to be run/significantly influenced by some one's faith, who gets to decide which faith and to what degree or what "intrusions" are acceptable?
He argues that legislators' "faith may be so intertwined with personality that it is impossible to tell when one is acting, or not acting, from religious motive" and later argues that the Establishment Clause "might end up not anti establishments but anti religion." Are religious people afraid to talk about their faiths? Do politicians share their faith experiences or "hide" from them? I have heard many politicians expressing their Protestant, Catholic, Evangelical, Mormon, and even Muslim faiths, but yet to hear a politician say (s)he is an atheist or agnostic -- what might that suggest? If the majority of the nation is religious, Christian, how can they be repressed? Who is repressing them?
Scenerio: As a Catholic, even my father has said that I am in a "cult". His interpretation and application of faith are significantly different than mine -- If the area is prodominantly Catholic, and it influences local laws, should he have to follow them?
Now consider the agnostic or atheist etc., should that person be denied sex ed because some people of faith disagree with it due to their religious background?
Friday, February 23, 2007
Hannah Arendt had a strong belief that concentration camps are the highest, most capable form of evil done by man. They are an example of total domination and its aims to eliminate individuality. In class I raised the point of Guantanamo Bay and its use of camps and how they are very similar to the concentration camps of Nazi Germany. Some may be thinking that it is quite a stretch to compare our government’s detainee camp to one of Nazi Germany but while discussing the two in class I was also surprised how closely the two are related.
Within concentration camps of Nazi Germany, Jews were stripped of their identity, belongings, clothing, spouses, and children they were given a number and a job to do if not sentenced to death. Within Guantanamo Bay detainees were captured (many without strong evidence of terrorist support) stripped from their environment, clothing, religious practice, and identity. Once arrived to Cuba, they were given a number and a camp assignment. Every so often a detainee was transferred from one camp to the next. If a detainee wasn’t allotting the torturer information that he wanted to hear, the detainee would be sent to a “worse” camp; with a different uniform, different living conditions, different food, different washing privileges and different bathroom abilities. See this article within this link http://hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/gitmo1004/3.htm for more details regarding the different camps.
I am not saying that the United States government is using gas chambers to kill Arabic men, like the Nazis did with the Jewish. But the US government is using multiple torture tactics that make a many want to die. I don’t know which is worse. Not having the will or desire to live because of the condition that one is trapped in without valid evidence or support, or being killed quickly because of ones religious affiliation. In both cases, Nazi Germany and Guantanamo Bay, man’s psyche is destroyed. To the point where he does not desire to live. The ultimate elimination of an individual is the destruction of his psyche to the point where he does not desire to live.
Contemporary Issues: Rousseau
Rousseau’s Social Contract discusses the development and formation of government, as well as the nature of rights and freedom. The social contract is as relevant today as ever, because it raises the question of what requirements does a government need to meet to be a legitimate government and what rights do people absolutely have to have.
America as a country has often held high ideals of freedom and equality for all and yet rarely have those ideals been faithfully acted upon. Rousseau believed that because everyone gave up equal rights for the social contract, they in turn were given equal rights. Unfortunately, as we can see this somewhat idealistic view never seems to translate to the real world. Even in America, prejudice and inequality are still a fact of life. We talked in class earlier about affirmative action, such a law would be unnecessary if people were given equal rights by the government from the beginning.
The social contract came about by people in a state of nature coming together and giving up some rights in order to form and have the protection and stability of a government which represents the people. To be a legitimate government, the ruling body should represent the views and wants of the people. Unfortunately, in many situations, especially in a dictatorship, this is not the case. The views of the people are not always represented fairly even in America, where a law such as the Patriot Act can be passed despite the protests and disagreement of many.
Rousseau was considered radical for his time, because he suggested a method for changing governments completely, and not just making changed to the current government. As we have seen in the past decade or so, changing governments is not always easy or in reality effective. The Soviet Union was disbanded from communism, yet there are still difficulties in maintaining a fair democracy. In Iraq, America overthrew a dictator in order to create a democracy. Still 3 years later, the democratic government has problems running and controlling the country, while there is current unrest among different demographic groups.
America as a country has often held high ideals of freedom and equality for all and yet rarely have those ideals been faithfully acted upon. Rousseau believed that because everyone gave up equal rights for the social contract, they in turn were given equal rights. Unfortunately, as we can see this somewhat idealistic view never seems to translate to the real world. Even in America, prejudice and inequality are still a fact of life. We talked in class earlier about affirmative action, such a law would be unnecessary if people were given equal rights by the government from the beginning.
The social contract came about by people in a state of nature coming together and giving up some rights in order to form and have the protection and stability of a government which represents the people. To be a legitimate government, the ruling body should represent the views and wants of the people. Unfortunately, in many situations, especially in a dictatorship, this is not the case. The views of the people are not always represented fairly even in America, where a law such as the Patriot Act can be passed despite the protests and disagreement of many.
Rousseau was considered radical for his time, because he suggested a method for changing governments completely, and not just making changed to the current government. As we have seen in the past decade or so, changing governments is not always easy or in reality effective. The Soviet Union was disbanded from communism, yet there are still difficulties in maintaining a fair democracy. In Iraq, America overthrew a dictator in order to create a democracy. Still 3 years later, the democratic government has problems running and controlling the country, while there is current unrest among different demographic groups.
Quote of the Week
First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
Monday, February 19, 2007
More Habeas Corpus
Here is a link regarding the petition to restore Habeas Corpus.
Also, in class someone mentioned the fear of communism spreading during the “Red Scare.” During the 1950’s Senator Joe McCarthy held investigative hearings about the spread of communism and basically labeled all witnesses at the hearings as “communist sympathizers.” It was not until journalist Edward R. Murrow spoke out against McCarthy with special commentaries, did others begin to take on the McCarthy machine. Check out the movie “Good Night, and Good Luck” for more information. Murrow stated:
In a more intense clip than the one shown in class, Olbermann attacks the Military Commissions Act ala Edward R. Murrow:
Also, in class someone mentioned the fear of communism spreading during the “Red Scare.” During the 1950’s Senator Joe McCarthy held investigative hearings about the spread of communism and basically labeled all witnesses at the hearings as “communist sympathizers.” It was not until journalist Edward R. Murrow spoke out against McCarthy with special commentaries, did others begin to take on the McCarthy machine. Check out the movie “Good Night, and Good Luck” for more information. Murrow stated:
His [McCarthy] primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between the internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men.
In a more intense clip than the one shown in class, Olbermann attacks the Military Commissions Act ala Edward R. Murrow:
Military Commissions Act (MCA)
I was going to say this in class but Matt skipped over me so I'll just write it here. (haha, just kidding Matt, it's all good:)
Anyway, we talked a lot about the MCA and whether or not a majority of Americans would be in favor of this type of legislation. Now, I am biased since I think the legislation is a disgrace but hear me out anyway. I think we should ask ourselves if this type of legislation is even effective. Personally, even if it was effective I would not support it because it infringes on our most basic rights but many people would definitely have no problem with MCA if it worked. The goal of MCA is to catch terrorists before they strike but I get the feeling that it has adverse effects. Namely, it creates more terrorists than it catches. There are many documented stories of innocent people being detained by the government and tortured for a long period of time. After their release they join a terrorist organization even though they were never in one before. Why? Well, if you were caught and tortured by some government agency as a suspected terrorist wouldn't you harbor some negative feelings against the government provided that you were innocent? So in this way the Military Commissions Act is not effective.
And just to clear some confusion up, the bill itself passed 65-34 (12 Dems joined all but one Republican to vote yes) while a provision by Sens. Leahy and Specter to preserve habeas corpus failed 51-48. I was surprised that 12 Democrats would vote yes but since this was only 2 or 3 weeks before the midterm elections, many Democrats did not want to be painted as weak on national security, as they were in 2004. Yes, tricky tactics indeed, but that's just everyday politics in Washington.
Anyway, we talked a lot about the MCA and whether or not a majority of Americans would be in favor of this type of legislation. Now, I am biased since I think the legislation is a disgrace but hear me out anyway. I think we should ask ourselves if this type of legislation is even effective. Personally, even if it was effective I would not support it because it infringes on our most basic rights but many people would definitely have no problem with MCA if it worked. The goal of MCA is to catch terrorists before they strike but I get the feeling that it has adverse effects. Namely, it creates more terrorists than it catches. There are many documented stories of innocent people being detained by the government and tortured for a long period of time. After their release they join a terrorist organization even though they were never in one before. Why? Well, if you were caught and tortured by some government agency as a suspected terrorist wouldn't you harbor some negative feelings against the government provided that you were innocent? So in this way the Military Commissions Act is not effective.
And just to clear some confusion up, the bill itself passed 65-34 (12 Dems joined all but one Republican to vote yes) while a provision by Sens. Leahy and Specter to preserve habeas corpus failed 51-48. I was surprised that 12 Democrats would vote yes but since this was only 2 or 3 weeks before the midterm elections, many Democrats did not want to be painted as weak on national security, as they were in 2004. Yes, tricky tactics indeed, but that's just everyday politics in Washington.
Friday, February 16, 2007
The smaller man
Today in class I asked when do the citizens of the state lose their right as individuals for the quality of the state. Chad noted that when an agreement on a revolution is made to change the previous agreement, it is at that point the citizens claim their individual rights back to start this revolution. But how many citizens are enough to start this revolution? Does it take a small group from a town to realize that their rights are not being treated accurately? Or does it take a larger group that has courage because of the shear number of people? Can it be both?
Yes. Both groups can fight for their rights, and both can be successful. The tactics of fighting for these rights may be different, but they have the capability of a positive outcome. This point relates to Stanton and her list of capabilities, a quote I want to take from her declaration is as such: “…when a long train of abuses and unsurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security” (164). It is their duty and capability to revolt against an unjust government. But the idea of allowing only those in mass numbers to revolt against an unjust government is equally unjust. Luckily, the “smaller men” in a community have revolted against these “big brothers”, and we are active in an equally just community.
The creation of co-ops within the United States is an example of “smaller men” fighting for their just quality of life. I have personal experience with co-ops because our electric company at home is a co-op within northwest Ohio. Small town farmers whose property were being bought out by large companies like Toledo Edison created co-operations. These farmers created land barriers by creating their own source of electricity, which is networked with other farmers across the state, which leads to a water-based electric plant in Cincinnati. The point being that these few men, needed courage to fight against a bigger power. And they were not the majority; the majority was for the spread of the large electric company. The moral of the story: the majority is not always right.
Yes. Both groups can fight for their rights, and both can be successful. The tactics of fighting for these rights may be different, but they have the capability of a positive outcome. This point relates to Stanton and her list of capabilities, a quote I want to take from her declaration is as such: “…when a long train of abuses and unsurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security” (164). It is their duty and capability to revolt against an unjust government. But the idea of allowing only those in mass numbers to revolt against an unjust government is equally unjust. Luckily, the “smaller men” in a community have revolted against these “big brothers”, and we are active in an equally just community.
The creation of co-ops within the United States is an example of “smaller men” fighting for their just quality of life. I have personal experience with co-ops because our electric company at home is a co-op within northwest Ohio. Small town farmers whose property were being bought out by large companies like Toledo Edison created co-operations. These farmers created land barriers by creating their own source of electricity, which is networked with other farmers across the state, which leads to a water-based electric plant in Cincinnati. The point being that these few men, needed courage to fight against a bigger power. And they were not the majority; the majority was for the spread of the large electric company. The moral of the story: the majority is not always right.
The smaller man
Today in class I asked when do the citizens of the state lose their right as individuals for the quality of the state. Chad noted that when an agreement on a revolution is made to change the previous agreement, it is at that point the citizens claim their individual rights back to start this revolution. But how many citizens are enough to start this revolution? Does it take a small group from a town to realize that their rights are not being treated accurately? Or does it take a larger group that has courage because of the shear number of people? Can it be both?
Yes. Both groups can fight for their rights, and both can be successful. The tactics of fighting for these rights may be different, but they have the capability of a positive outcome. This point relates to Stanton and her list of capabilities, a quote I want to take from her declaration is as such: “…when a long train of abuses and unsurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security” (164). It is their duty and capability to revolt against an unjust government. But the idea of allowing only those in mass numbers to revolt against an unjust government is equally unjust. Luckily, the “smaller men” in a community have revolted against these “big brothers”, and we are active in an equally just community.
The creation of co-ops within the United States is an example of “smaller men” fighting for their just quality of life. I have personal experience with co-ops because our electric company at home is a co-op within northwest Ohio. Small town farmers whose property were being bought out by large companies like Toledo Edison created co-operations. These farmers created land barriers by creating their own source of electricity, which is networked with other farmers across the state, which leads to a water-based electric plant in Cincinnati. The point being that these few men, needed courage to fight against a bigger power. And they were not the majority; the majority was for the spread of the large electric company. The moral of the story: the majority is not always right.
Yes. Both groups can fight for their rights, and both can be successful. The tactics of fighting for these rights may be different, but they have the capability of a positive outcome. This point relates to Stanton and her list of capabilities, a quote I want to take from her declaration is as such: “…when a long train of abuses and unsurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security” (164). It is their duty and capability to revolt against an unjust government. But the idea of allowing only those in mass numbers to revolt against an unjust government is equally unjust. Luckily, the “smaller men” in a community have revolted against these “big brothers”, and we are active in an equally just community.
The creation of co-ops within the United States is an example of “smaller men” fighting for their just quality of life. I have personal experience with co-ops because our electric company at home is a co-op within northwest Ohio. Small town farmers whose property were being bought out by large companies like Toledo Edison created co-operations. These farmers created land barriers by creating their own source of electricity, which is networked with other farmers across the state, which leads to a water-based electric plant in Cincinnati. The point being that these few men, needed courage to fight against a bigger power. And they were not the majority; the majority was for the spread of the large electric company. The moral of the story: the majority is not always right.
Machiavelli's ends
Machiavelli is famous for his work, The Prince, which was written to advise the Medici family on how to successfully govern the city-state of Florence in Italy. It has been criticized by many as immoral and wrong, but many also see Machiavelli as having stated the inevitable, as ugly as it may be. He is also famous for his rhetorical style. The persuasive and forceful way he drives his points home is still studied today.
One of the big questions brought up by Machiavelli is, “Do the ends justify the means?” He says yes, they do, because sacrifices must be made in order for a Prince to progress in the world. This answer may suffice for those in power, but should it be put into practice today? One might say that the war in Iraq was a situation in which the administration thought that the ends would justify the means. The problem that is slowly being realized is that this particular ideology is not working in this ideological war. The civilians and terrorists are, in many cases, one and the same. Now, I’m not saying that all Iraqi’s are terrorists. I’m saying that Iraq used to be all citizens, but the more the US government bombs and kills, the more outraged Iraqi’s there are, and the more outraged Iraqi’s there are the more likely those who have lost everything will join with those who are fighting the invaders. This situation points to the flaw in the “ends justify the means” argument. If one can’t be 100% sure of what the ends will be, than the means cannot possibly be justified.
Another important idea Machiavelli brings up is about perception. He believes that the people’s perception of what is happening in their government is all that matters. The leader should do all that is necessary, ignoring morals and laws, to secure his power. As a citizen of the USA, this makes me wonder how much this happens everyday to me. I am constantly bombarded with images of freedom, liberty, patriotism, and a general urge by society to conform to the “hometown America” image. Is America really all cornfields and Chevy trucks and home cooked meals? Because I’ve never seen it. Americans are shown so much every day by the media, and are told so much by politicians, that most don’t realize that no one really lives in the “typical American family,” or has the average American life. In fact, most people when asked can’t even define freedom in their own words. It is very important to realize what is being fed to you. Next time you watch TV, or see a political speech really think: Is this person/advertisement appealing to my reality or my perception of it? You may be surprised.
One of the big questions brought up by Machiavelli is, “Do the ends justify the means?” He says yes, they do, because sacrifices must be made in order for a Prince to progress in the world. This answer may suffice for those in power, but should it be put into practice today? One might say that the war in Iraq was a situation in which the administration thought that the ends would justify the means. The problem that is slowly being realized is that this particular ideology is not working in this ideological war. The civilians and terrorists are, in many cases, one and the same. Now, I’m not saying that all Iraqi’s are terrorists. I’m saying that Iraq used to be all citizens, but the more the US government bombs and kills, the more outraged Iraqi’s there are, and the more outraged Iraqi’s there are the more likely those who have lost everything will join with those who are fighting the invaders. This situation points to the flaw in the “ends justify the means” argument. If one can’t be 100% sure of what the ends will be, than the means cannot possibly be justified.
Another important idea Machiavelli brings up is about perception. He believes that the people’s perception of what is happening in their government is all that matters. The leader should do all that is necessary, ignoring morals and laws, to secure his power. As a citizen of the USA, this makes me wonder how much this happens everyday to me. I am constantly bombarded with images of freedom, liberty, patriotism, and a general urge by society to conform to the “hometown America” image. Is America really all cornfields and Chevy trucks and home cooked meals? Because I’ve never seen it. Americans are shown so much every day by the media, and are told so much by politicians, that most don’t realize that no one really lives in the “typical American family,” or has the average American life. In fact, most people when asked can’t even define freedom in their own words. It is very important to realize what is being fed to you. Next time you watch TV, or see a political speech really think: Is this person/advertisement appealing to my reality or my perception of it? You may be surprised.
Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson was chosen to put the freedom of the new colonies into words. He was a man of great political influence, but more importantly, he was a man of eloquence. His writing style emancipated us from Britain. The Declaration of Independence is convincing and clear, making it seem unbiased. But, is it really devoid of all prejudices?
Throughout Jefferson’s summary of the crimes that “He” (King George III) committed against the country and its people, Jefferson makes a very strong argument against persecution through the use of stating mandatory rights with the phrases, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights…” [paragraph 1]. However, how are slaves allotted these “Rights”? How could Jefferson have been a slave owner with these beliefs? One must question if Jefferson knew what would be the best (most convincing) on paper, yet harbored a more Philus (in terms of Cicero’s The Defense of Injustice) view where, “The most fortunate choice is…the perform injustice, if you can get away with it.” Also, women seem to be left out of the bulk of this piece. When people in general are referred to, women are implied, but this does not seem to be the case in this early patriarchal society (mindset). How do you feel women, slaves, and minorities in general are included in this declaration (or, why they were silently excluded)?
The Declaration of Independence was written to showcase the injustices of Britain and free the colonies, revolutionaries, from corruption using a Rousseau-based approach (as we talked about in class / V for Vendetta, etc.). However, who exactly is this document meant to free? As previously stated, The Declaration of Independence is directed more towards the freedom of men. This was interesting to me because Cady Stanton saw this same view and transformed Jefferson’s work into her own feminine version. This is such an influential piece, and it can all be related back to Rousseau. His (Rousseau’s) idea of radical change in government influenced the French Revolution and American Revolution, which many years later, again inspired Stanton’s radical idea of a women’s independence.
Throughout Jefferson’s summary of the crimes that “He” (King George III) committed against the country and its people, Jefferson makes a very strong argument against persecution through the use of stating mandatory rights with the phrases, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights…” [paragraph 1]. However, how are slaves allotted these “Rights”? How could Jefferson have been a slave owner with these beliefs? One must question if Jefferson knew what would be the best (most convincing) on paper, yet harbored a more Philus (in terms of Cicero’s The Defense of Injustice) view where, “The most fortunate choice is…the perform injustice, if you can get away with it.” Also, women seem to be left out of the bulk of this piece. When people in general are referred to, women are implied, but this does not seem to be the case in this early patriarchal society (mindset). How do you feel women, slaves, and minorities in general are included in this declaration (or, why they were silently excluded)?
The Declaration of Independence was written to showcase the injustices of Britain and free the colonies, revolutionaries, from corruption using a Rousseau-based approach (as we talked about in class / V for Vendetta, etc.). However, who exactly is this document meant to free? As previously stated, The Declaration of Independence is directed more towards the freedom of men. This was interesting to me because Cady Stanton saw this same view and transformed Jefferson’s work into her own feminine version. This is such an influential piece, and it can all be related back to Rousseau. His (Rousseau’s) idea of radical change in government influenced the French Revolution and American Revolution, which many years later, again inspired Stanton’s radical idea of a women’s independence.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Give me liberty or Give me death
Rousseau takes some interesting positions in his work “The Origin of Civil Society” by looking back at the roots of how governments and societies wield their power. Rousseau believes that the current governments that we submit ourselves to take away our liberty and freedom without necessarily providing us with anything. He is perplexed with this submission that we enter into soon after our birth. Rousseau suggests that governments should be created in accordance to working to the advantage of the citizens rather than enslaving them.
I found Rousseau’s thoughts on slavery to be especially intriguing. He says that one cannot exchange their liberty for their life because one man or State should not have control of another man’s life. Also, in terms of prisoners of war, the State’s war is with another State, not the citizens. When a man acts as a defender of a State, he is giving up his liberty, but once he puts down his weapon, he becomes an individual again. As an individual, he is not an enemy of the State anymore. I think that this is not practiced in war very much today. This simplifies the rules of war to, in my opinion, quite reasonable guidelines. As long as a man is acting for the State, he is your enemy. But once he is acting for himself, he no longer is your enemy.
I thought Rousseau’s suggestion to Princes to take the land of an enemy State, but to leave the personal land of citizens untouched was in agreement with Machiavelli’s guidelines. Machiavelli says you should appear fair to your citizens, and to never touch a man’s woman or land. If you are taking over a State, you must consider the “enemy” citizens as already your people or they will not accept you as their new leader.
Though one gives up his liberty and land to join a State, he is not bound to such State. I found it especially interesting that one must join a State in order to solidify his ownership of his land. So you must give up your land in order to attain possession of it. This is rather paradoxical, but in joining a State, you are gaining the support of an army of people to help protect your land, though you do not have sole ownership of it any longer.
Can a man really give up his liberty for his life? It is true that without having life, you cannot have liberty anyways. But is a life without liberty worth living? Do we really even have liberty to exchange? Rousseau does make the point that “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” I’m not sure that we know what true liberty is. I am wondering if anyone else has thoughts on what kind of liberty we can have in the world today. It is a value we hold dear as Americans, but I’m not sure that we even know what we are holding on to. Can one have true liberty while being part of a State?
I found Rousseau’s thoughts on slavery to be especially intriguing. He says that one cannot exchange their liberty for their life because one man or State should not have control of another man’s life. Also, in terms of prisoners of war, the State’s war is with another State, not the citizens. When a man acts as a defender of a State, he is giving up his liberty, but once he puts down his weapon, he becomes an individual again. As an individual, he is not an enemy of the State anymore. I think that this is not practiced in war very much today. This simplifies the rules of war to, in my opinion, quite reasonable guidelines. As long as a man is acting for the State, he is your enemy. But once he is acting for himself, he no longer is your enemy.
I thought Rousseau’s suggestion to Princes to take the land of an enemy State, but to leave the personal land of citizens untouched was in agreement with Machiavelli’s guidelines. Machiavelli says you should appear fair to your citizens, and to never touch a man’s woman or land. If you are taking over a State, you must consider the “enemy” citizens as already your people or they will not accept you as their new leader.
Though one gives up his liberty and land to join a State, he is not bound to such State. I found it especially interesting that one must join a State in order to solidify his ownership of his land. So you must give up your land in order to attain possession of it. This is rather paradoxical, but in joining a State, you are gaining the support of an army of people to help protect your land, though you do not have sole ownership of it any longer.
Can a man really give up his liberty for his life? It is true that without having life, you cannot have liberty anyways. But is a life without liberty worth living? Do we really even have liberty to exchange? Rousseau does make the point that “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” I’m not sure that we know what true liberty is. I am wondering if anyone else has thoughts on what kind of liberty we can have in the world today. It is a value we hold dear as Americans, but I’m not sure that we even know what we are holding on to. Can one have true liberty while being part of a State?
Rousseau and the civilization of North America
Rousseau discusses some very interesting ideas about civil society, how it came to be, and what about it is truly important. Like Ross points out in his post, I also noticed the powerfulness of Rousseau’s first sentence of this essay. “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” This quote stands to act as thesis for the ideas the Rousseau explores in his writing. He goes on to discus the family unit as the oldest form of society. I was surprised to read Rousseau’s view on the family unit, since he suffered such a unique family situation himself, as discussed in the small biography in the text. I found this to be interesting to consider today since the traditional “family” structure is challenged and changing to fit more mixed families, half-siblings, and families in which the parents may be gay or straight. Therefore, it might be hard in today’s society to consider the family a model of political associations as Rousseau does.
Rousseau then spends a lot of time discussing Slavery. He states that every man is born free, and that no one but themselves has a right to dispose of their liberty. This, obviously, is not how slavery was implemented in our in our own country. Then, the children of slaves were considered born into the same slavery as their parents. Rousseau also uses his discussion on slavery to talk about war and what “rights” wartime entails dealing with slavery. Rousseau continues his essay to further discuss social society and the agreements man makes between himself and society.
The most interesting parts of this essay, for me, dealt with the civil sate and property. As I read this, I could not help but think about the Native Americans that were here in North America before the Europeans. I kept thinking about how much the “white man” imposed on the beliefs and way of life of the indigenous people that were here before they arrived. Rousseau states, “What a man loses as a result of the Social Contract is his natural liberty and his unqualified right to lay hands on all that tempts him, provided only that he can compass its possession. What he gains is civil liberty and the ownership of what belongs to him.” This quote, I think, is wholly contradictory to the way Native Americans view a sort of social contract. They do not see or agree with the very western view point we take on owning land or possessing things that really belong to the Earth, that therefore cannot be “owned” by any human.
We (the white Europeans) also violated the Right of “first occupancy” that Rousseau talks about, because humans were not the first occupants of North American land, and even if they were, the white man arrived even after the indigenous people.
Each of these ideas were violated by the white people. When the European white people came over to North America, none of these 3 conditions were present, nor were these ideas followed. It makes me wonder why, if Jean-Jacques Rousseau was so influential in his time, his ideas were not taken seriously and implemented into our own culture until it was too late for so many native people and the lands they lived on.
Rousseau then spends a lot of time discussing Slavery. He states that every man is born free, and that no one but themselves has a right to dispose of their liberty. This, obviously, is not how slavery was implemented in our in our own country. Then, the children of slaves were considered born into the same slavery as their parents. Rousseau also uses his discussion on slavery to talk about war and what “rights” wartime entails dealing with slavery. Rousseau continues his essay to further discuss social society and the agreements man makes between himself and society.
The most interesting parts of this essay, for me, dealt with the civil sate and property. As I read this, I could not help but think about the Native Americans that were here in North America before the Europeans. I kept thinking about how much the “white man” imposed on the beliefs and way of life of the indigenous people that were here before they arrived. Rousseau states, “What a man loses as a result of the Social Contract is his natural liberty and his unqualified right to lay hands on all that tempts him, provided only that he can compass its possession. What he gains is civil liberty and the ownership of what belongs to him.” This quote, I think, is wholly contradictory to the way Native Americans view a sort of social contract. They do not see or agree with the very western view point we take on owning land or possessing things that really belong to the Earth, that therefore cannot be “owned” by any human.
We (the white Europeans) also violated the Right of “first occupancy” that Rousseau talks about, because humans were not the first occupants of North American land, and even if they were, the white man arrived even after the indigenous people.
“In order that the right of “first occupancy” may be legalized, the following conditions must be present. (1) There must be no one already living on the land in question. (2) A man must occupy only so much of it as is necessary for his subsistence. (3) He must take possession of it, not by empty ceremony, but by virtue of his intention to work and to cultivate it, for that, in the absence of legal title, along constitutes a claim which will be respected by others.”
Each of these ideas were violated by the white people. When the European white people came over to North America, none of these 3 conditions were present, nor were these ideas followed. It makes me wonder why, if Jean-Jacques Rousseau was so influential in his time, his ideas were not taken seriously and implemented into our own culture until it was too late for so many native people and the lands they lived on.
A Just Government
The last unit we covered was justice. We covered many influential writers including Thoreau and King. In this unit we have read two conflicting viewpoints on how a government should be run. These viewpoints were written by Machiavelli and Rousseau. The question I would like to consider is which, if either of them is just.
Machiavelli’s viewpoint is considered realistic and pragmatic while Rousseau’s ideas are considered idealistic. Their views on human nature are fundamentally different. Machiavelli thinks of people as “a sorry lot,” prone to lying, cheating, and breaking promises. Rousseau sees humans as possessing a certain value, as determined by “the natural order.”
These differences in method are partially due to the different circumstances in which the two men lived. Machiavelli lived in a divided country full of city states which needed to defend themselves against ever present threats. Rousseau lived among republics and democratic governments. They both based their ideas on the ideals of the governments around them.
I think that a compromise between both sides of the spectrum, as highlighted by Machiavelli and Rousseau, are necessary for a government to function and be considered just. I think that justice and freedom should be emphasized, and for that, I believe that Rousseau is right that people must hand over some of their individual freedom to all so that all may be free. People hand over some of their freedom when they know it will not be abused, and it provides them with certain protections from the government. The leader of the government should be most concerned with accomplishing the will of his people. No one should be left out of the governmental process.
On the other hand, when the very order is threatened, Machiavelli has some very good insights. Faced with the very dissolution of the social order, a strong hand is needed. In times of war, people are often willing to give up more freedom in exchange for more protections. Even in this however, we must be careful. When one man takes all the power he is in danger of ignoring the will of the people in order to accomplish his own plans. Also, when all concept of morality is set aside to accomplish a goal, there is a danger of harming the very people you seek to protect. For example, many people believe that the Patriot Act while possibly protecting us from terrorists, violates our individual rights as citizens. The same can be said of the secret courts in
The different writers had many different ideas of what made a society just. Many of them agreed however, that people had to be treated more or less equally and afforded equal rights. While Rousseau emphasizes these rights, Machiavelli seems to support laying them aside for the good of a government in crisis. While a government in crisis requires a certain loss of freedom for the greater good, individual rights should still be protected if a society is to be considered just. “By any means necessary” can easily create means that are more costly than the worth of the ends achieved. Rousseau’s ideas, while more in tune with the individual’s need to be free, are very broad and difficult to apply practically. Somewhere between these two extreme viewpoints lies a truly just society.
Iraq Issues
After last Wednesday’s discussion of the ethics in determining whether or not the United States has the obligation of treating innocent civilians of Iraq with equal justice, I would like to present my thoughts on the subject.
In Michael Moore’s documentary, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” there contains a segment in which viewers are shown the killing of innocent civilians in Iraq. By doing so, the United States has taken from the Iraqi people the ability to live, Nussbaum’s number one central human capability. A question that arises from this conflict is: Is it the responsibility of the American military to fight it’s battles while keeping in mind the ten essential capabilities to good life? I think that yes, it is the right of the American military to protect the abilities of civilians from any country in any war. This is because I believe that the United States should treat the world as an equal society. To achieve social justice in global matters, the United States must give the capability for people all around the world the right to Nussbaum’s ten functions. This, however, does not absolutely rule out the justification of war. If in war, militaries can limit themselves only to the killing and destruction of purely military based units and structures, then civilians will always have the capability to live freely while having the ability to perform the ten necessary functions. This is keeping in mind the fact that a countries’ soldiers are fighting solely based on personal choice, rather than federal enforcement. This allows every person in the world the ability to choose not to risk his or her life in war, thus enabling everyone the ability of life. Therefore, I am arguing that all militaries, when fighting a war, should not justify the killing of civilians, due to the central foundation of similarity every human possess on this earth: the properties of a human being. All people should respect this similarity across the world, and therefore all races, religions, and nations should treat people equally. Consequently, if the United States eliminates the killing of innocent civilians, they will allow Iraqis the ability to live, Nussbaum’s first and foremost capability to what dictates a “good human life.”
In Michael Moore’s documentary, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” there contains a segment in which viewers are shown the killing of innocent civilians in Iraq. By doing so, the United States has taken from the Iraqi people the ability to live, Nussbaum’s number one central human capability. A question that arises from this conflict is: Is it the responsibility of the American military to fight it’s battles while keeping in mind the ten essential capabilities to good life? I think that yes, it is the right of the American military to protect the abilities of civilians from any country in any war. This is because I believe that the United States should treat the world as an equal society. To achieve social justice in global matters, the United States must give the capability for people all around the world the right to Nussbaum’s ten functions. This, however, does not absolutely rule out the justification of war. If in war, militaries can limit themselves only to the killing and destruction of purely military based units and structures, then civilians will always have the capability to live freely while having the ability to perform the ten necessary functions. This is keeping in mind the fact that a countries’ soldiers are fighting solely based on personal choice, rather than federal enforcement. This allows every person in the world the ability to choose not to risk his or her life in war, thus enabling everyone the ability of life. Therefore, I am arguing that all militaries, when fighting a war, should not justify the killing of civilians, due to the central foundation of similarity every human possess on this earth: the properties of a human being. All people should respect this similarity across the world, and therefore all races, religions, and nations should treat people equally. Consequently, if the United States eliminates the killing of innocent civilians, they will allow Iraqis the ability to live, Nussbaum’s first and foremost capability to what dictates a “good human life.”
Would Machiavelli be a good prince?
In Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of the Prince,” many interesting issues are presented—issues that could take pages and pages to thoroughly discuss. In short, Machiavelli puts forth a practical guide for princes on how to maintain power. Some of the over-arching ideas Machiavelli presents in his piece are that one, a prince should know how to wage war and succeed at it, know how to deceive and manipulate his subjects, and know how to be feared but not hated. Some argue that this piece is pessimistic while others argue that it is realistic. Either way, different leaders throughout the world and time have studied Machiavelli. In the very least, “The Qualities of the Prince” provokes thought.
Our discussion in class brought up some very interesting comments and ideas, but one that was not brought up that I have been thinking about is whether or not Machiavelli himself would make a good prince. The way in which he writes makes it sound as though Machiavelli really could pull off a role as a prince, but is being a prince really as simple as following an instruction manual? Machiavelli says that a good prince needs to be adept in war, yet what about peace negotiations or compromises? Machiavelli implies that a good prince must be tough, must be feared. But where do compassion and admiration come into play? And how much is experience worth? Or being able to read people, to communicate, to get people to want to follow you—not out of fear, but out of respect and veneration.
Personally I think that Machiavelli would not be able to pull off being a good prince. There is so much more to it than following instructions. Don’t get me wrong—there are some very relevant points that are brought up, and I think that everything in this piece should be taken into consideration. But should it be followed? Good leaders and princes have a passion to change what’s under their control for the better. They learn from experience and from mistakes, and even if they manipulate and deceive for the greater good, this is not their ultimate goal. Instead of acting as prince, I believe that Machiavelli would serve better as a prince’s advisor. He has some very good ideas, but I feel that his approach to such an important job is too pessimistic and mechanical to really be effective (at least in a positive way).
Our discussion in class brought up some very interesting comments and ideas, but one that was not brought up that I have been thinking about is whether or not Machiavelli himself would make a good prince. The way in which he writes makes it sound as though Machiavelli really could pull off a role as a prince, but is being a prince really as simple as following an instruction manual? Machiavelli says that a good prince needs to be adept in war, yet what about peace negotiations or compromises? Machiavelli implies that a good prince must be tough, must be feared. But where do compassion and admiration come into play? And how much is experience worth? Or being able to read people, to communicate, to get people to want to follow you—not out of fear, but out of respect and veneration.
Personally I think that Machiavelli would not be able to pull off being a good prince. There is so much more to it than following instructions. Don’t get me wrong—there are some very relevant points that are brought up, and I think that everything in this piece should be taken into consideration. But should it be followed? Good leaders and princes have a passion to change what’s under their control for the better. They learn from experience and from mistakes, and even if they manipulate and deceive for the greater good, this is not their ultimate goal. Instead of acting as prince, I believe that Machiavelli would serve better as a prince’s advisor. He has some very good ideas, but I feel that his approach to such an important job is too pessimistic and mechanical to really be effective (at least in a positive way).
Jefferson and Equality
Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and was partially inspired by Rousseau’s ideas of political equality of men and protecting certain fundamental rights. He believed all men had the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He felt all men were created equal and should not be shied away from any of these inalienable rights. Throughout this document Jefferson explains how the King of Great Britain established tyranny over the states by listing the many causes of injuries he inflicted. Jefferson said if the government ever becomes destructive or deprives people of their rights, the people have a right to overthrow or abolish the current government system and institute another.
Overall I like Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence; I think he has many good points and ideas. One of the main statements that sticks in most people’s minds is that men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is a very popular line. As a matter of fact there was a movie created with the title, The Pursuit of Happyness, which I have mentioned in a previous post. In this movie it just shows how Will Smith spends months trying to become a huge stock broker so he can live a wealthy life and no longer be in poverty. He takes many tests, sits in a classroom learning for hours with no pay, does favors for the big shots, and reads books so he can learn all the tricks and trades of the company. Nothing is handed to him, but he has the ability and opportunity to become this successful stock broker by working hard and striving to be the best. I believe all people should have the opportunity to be happy. They should be able to pursue their dreams, goals, or careers. Nobody should be allowed to take away that freedom as long as the person isn’t inflicting pain onto others or harming another.
Another thing about Jefferson I like is how he lists all the grievances against the King of Great Britain and his tyrant government. By doing this it shows the rights and opportunities people are being deprived of. For example, in time of peace he decided to keep armies, he cut off trade with all parts of the world, and he also imposed taxes with no consent. By doing this the King is not allowing people to live a fulfilled life, one of freedom and happiness. Jefferson feels in times like that, the people have the right to declare themselves a separate nation so they can receive all these equal rights as their fellow neighbors do. I agree with this. When laws and rules are laid down, people should have to follow them but if they are limiting them to certain freedoms they should have the right to overthrow that ruler or government. “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coast, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people” (80). This is one of the quotes Jefferson uses towards the end of his piece. I feel it is very powerful to show his point that the people have the right to overthrow someone who does these things to them. All people are created equal the leaders or governors are no better then the people they rule over or govern; therefore they should not treat them any different and deprive them of any rights. All people should have the capabilities to succeed and be great if someone tries to stop them from doing so, they should be allowed to defend themselves and fight for their rights!
Overall I like Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence; I think he has many good points and ideas. One of the main statements that sticks in most people’s minds is that men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is a very popular line. As a matter of fact there was a movie created with the title, The Pursuit of Happyness, which I have mentioned in a previous post. In this movie it just shows how Will Smith spends months trying to become a huge stock broker so he can live a wealthy life and no longer be in poverty. He takes many tests, sits in a classroom learning for hours with no pay, does favors for the big shots, and reads books so he can learn all the tricks and trades of the company. Nothing is handed to him, but he has the ability and opportunity to become this successful stock broker by working hard and striving to be the best. I believe all people should have the opportunity to be happy. They should be able to pursue their dreams, goals, or careers. Nobody should be allowed to take away that freedom as long as the person isn’t inflicting pain onto others or harming another.
Another thing about Jefferson I like is how he lists all the grievances against the King of Great Britain and his tyrant government. By doing this it shows the rights and opportunities people are being deprived of. For example, in time of peace he decided to keep armies, he cut off trade with all parts of the world, and he also imposed taxes with no consent. By doing this the King is not allowing people to live a fulfilled life, one of freedom and happiness. Jefferson feels in times like that, the people have the right to declare themselves a separate nation so they can receive all these equal rights as their fellow neighbors do. I agree with this. When laws and rules are laid down, people should have to follow them but if they are limiting them to certain freedoms they should have the right to overthrow that ruler or government. “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coast, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people” (80). This is one of the quotes Jefferson uses towards the end of his piece. I feel it is very powerful to show his point that the people have the right to overthrow someone who does these things to them. All people are created equal the leaders or governors are no better then the people they rule over or govern; therefore they should not treat them any different and deprive them of any rights. All people should have the capabilities to succeed and be great if someone tries to stop them from doing so, they should be allowed to defend themselves and fight for their rights!
Jefferson and Gay Marriage
The Declaration of Independence is one of the most famous documents in the world. Its author, Thomas Jefferson, expressed the grievances, of his fellow citizens, about the way the British Crown was treating them. He opens his piece by stating that all men are created equally and they have rights that cannot be taken away from them. Jefferson goes on to list all of the ways the king has treated the colonies and their people. He mentions taxation without representation, the presence of troops in peaceful time and their actions, and denying people a trial by jury. These are things, that today we take for granted. Jefferson refers to the king as a tyrant, who has repeatedly injured his subjects and is not fit to rule them. The writing of this document signaled that start of the United States.
To relate Jefferson’s ideas to a contemporary issue, I want to use the line “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit if Happiness.” After reading this line, the topic of gay marriage came to my mind. At the time, Jefferson was writing, the men that he referred to were only white men. Eventually, this changed to include African Americans and others. Today, the U.S. prides itself on its citizens having many freedoms. This may be true but gays who wish to get married are being denied their pursuit of Happiness, which Jefferson said all men have. Why does a place that brags about the freedom of its people deny the freedom of marriage to a minority group? Some claim that allowing gays to marry will ruin the sacred institute of marriage. Others use their religious views that say marriage is to between a man and women. The separation of church and state should cause religious views to not be present when laws are being made, but this does not happen. People who are gay are no less human than people who are straight, so why are they being treated differently? They were created equal to all other men and they are not asking for a lot. They want the chance to live a life with a commitment that expresses their love for another. Married couples in the United States receive certain “benefits.” They have the right of inheritance if their spouse dies, the right to make medical decisions for their spouse in times of emergencies, and they can receive social security benefits. Do not all people who are spending the rest of their life with a partner deserve these rights? For some people the idea of gay marriage is out of the question, but what about having civil unions or partners benefits? These two things could allow people to have all the benefits that married couples do but without having the label of marriage. Is wanting equality, in modern America, such a horrible thing?
I found Jefferson’s writing to be very interesting because it is the basis on which our country was founded. Jefferson and the other founding fathers imagined a country where its people would be free from the rule of a tyrant. Many of the things that he lists are things that we take for granted, but across the world, and in some cases in the U.S., certain rights and equalities are still being fought for. The piece must be interpreted differently as the times changes. Times have changed to where being gay is not a crime, so why are they being treated as equals? Jefferson’s piece remains to be relevant today, and any piece of work that can still be looked to hundreds of years later for guidance, must contain some great ideas.
Rousseau's Idealism
Rousseau captivates the reader with the first line, "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Unfortunately, he never adequately answers the question of why (at least not to my liking). I suppose this is in part due to the fact that he himself does not know the reasons for this contradiction.
Rousseau states that the oldest form of society is the family, with the father as ruler and children as his subjects. The children, like the people of the state, will relinquish their freedoms as long as it is to their benefit. Much of The Origin of Civil Society is written as a response to Hugo Grotius and Thomas Hobbes. Rousseau believes that these two men are not thinking outside the box. In other words, they see the world as it is and do not look to improve it. This reminds me of Robert Kennedy quoting a George Bernard Shaw play, "You see things as they are and ask, why? I dream things as they never were and ask, why not?" Rousseau argues against slavery and against the use of force to acquire power. He believes that no man "has natural authority over his fellows" and that "to admit that Might makes Right is to reverse the process of effect and cause." Both of these stances were extremely radical for the 18th century, even during the Enlightenment.
While reading Rousseau, I find myself wondering how realistic he is. Sure it would be great if what he says is true, but I have major doubts about this. For instance, let's examine Rousseau's opening statement again: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." I agree with Rousseau that man is born relatively free yet he is surprisingly restricted. I would argue that this is not always because of some tyrannical dictator but more or less can be attributed to human nature. We highly value our so-called human rights but we are also willing to give them up because it is easy and convenient to do so.
I myself am not a country music fan but Kris Kristofferson has a song entitled "The Burden of Freedom". I do not know what the intended meaning of the song is but when I hear the title it reminds me that too much freedom isn't necessarily a good thing. Too much choice hurts us and makes us more willing to give up certain freedoms for passivity.
What is astounding about Rousseau's work is that despite his idealism, he was able to be as influential as the at times pragmatic Machiavelli, if not more so. The framers of our Constitution considered many of Rousseau's ideas, especially his thoughts on the social contract. If people join together and abandon claims of natural right, they will be free and the person with the most might will not be ruler. Following the general will of the people protects individuals from subordination to the interests of an empowered minority.
Rousseau states that the oldest form of society is the family, with the father as ruler and children as his subjects. The children, like the people of the state, will relinquish their freedoms as long as it is to their benefit. Much of The Origin of Civil Society is written as a response to Hugo Grotius and Thomas Hobbes. Rousseau believes that these two men are not thinking outside the box. In other words, they see the world as it is and do not look to improve it. This reminds me of Robert Kennedy quoting a George Bernard Shaw play, "You see things as they are and ask, why? I dream things as they never were and ask, why not?" Rousseau argues against slavery and against the use of force to acquire power. He believes that no man "has natural authority over his fellows" and that "to admit that Might makes Right is to reverse the process of effect and cause." Both of these stances were extremely radical for the 18th century, even during the Enlightenment.
While reading Rousseau, I find myself wondering how realistic he is. Sure it would be great if what he says is true, but I have major doubts about this. For instance, let's examine Rousseau's opening statement again: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." I agree with Rousseau that man is born relatively free yet he is surprisingly restricted. I would argue that this is not always because of some tyrannical dictator but more or less can be attributed to human nature. We highly value our so-called human rights but we are also willing to give them up because it is easy and convenient to do so.
I myself am not a country music fan but Kris Kristofferson has a song entitled "The Burden of Freedom". I do not know what the intended meaning of the song is but when I hear the title it reminds me that too much freedom isn't necessarily a good thing. Too much choice hurts us and makes us more willing to give up certain freedoms for passivity.
What is astounding about Rousseau's work is that despite his idealism, he was able to be as influential as the at times pragmatic Machiavelli, if not more so. The framers of our Constitution considered many of Rousseau's ideas, especially his thoughts on the social contract. If people join together and abandon claims of natural right, they will be free and the person with the most might will not be ruler. Following the general will of the people protects individuals from subordination to the interests of an empowered minority.
The Princes are Still Here
Machiavelli is the author of a very interesting piece of work. Written as a straightforward guide to a prince, The Qualities of the Prince is easy to read and understand. What is interesting is that different people find different meanings in his work. In class we discussed two possibilities: either Machiavelli is truly writing a guide for a prince, probably the Medici prince, or he was writing an angry satire about the world after being thrown in prison. Either way, his book was influential and accurate for the situation of a leader in his day.
After hearing the criticism of Machiavelli’s works in class and then in the blog, I wanted to respond with the idea that this royalty does exist today and that this shady behavior happens all the time. Of course, this discussion depends on how one interprets the modern political situation.
Machiavelli’s time was ruled by many princes who had armies and subjects. Now, there are few princes today and none in America, but I am not making a literal comparison. America is run by the president and congress from the most part, and I will concentrate on these two rulers. Even though the presidency is technically a higher position than a member of congress I will think of them all as hundreds of princes. These princes either have control of the military or have some influence in foreign policy; they also are elected by a group of people, congress members are representative of a small area full of subjects and the president is representative of usually half the United States as well as a certain political party. So, in a metaphorical sense, princes still exist in some way today.
I believe it is also true that these princes still use the same techniques observed by Machiavelli. Leaders today are obsessed with war. The world is constantly in some kind of battle; governments continually fund military, weapons and defense, development; Leaders are always looking for opportunities to gain powerful allies through treaties. War is also still the key thought of a leader because some leaders must fight for their position and must kill off their opposition and some leaders must win an election and must present their opponents as less worthy for the position. One may say that politics is war and that politicians are obsessed with it. Politicians must keep up their appearances, practice their speeches and poise, and find incriminating facts about their rivals.
One other thought, how often to politicians appear to be trustworthy and generous when running for office and then never take a stand on certain issues or pass burdensome tax laws on the people. What is most important is for a person to seem like the perfect candidate because it is difficult to take someone out of office simply because the public is unhappy with how he has kept his promises.
After hearing the criticism of Machiavelli’s works in class and then in the blog, I wanted to respond with the idea that this royalty does exist today and that this shady behavior happens all the time. Of course, this discussion depends on how one interprets the modern political situation.
Machiavelli’s time was ruled by many princes who had armies and subjects. Now, there are few princes today and none in America, but I am not making a literal comparison. America is run by the president and congress from the most part, and I will concentrate on these two rulers. Even though the presidency is technically a higher position than a member of congress I will think of them all as hundreds of princes. These princes either have control of the military or have some influence in foreign policy; they also are elected by a group of people, congress members are representative of a small area full of subjects and the president is representative of usually half the United States as well as a certain political party. So, in a metaphorical sense, princes still exist in some way today.
I believe it is also true that these princes still use the same techniques observed by Machiavelli. Leaders today are obsessed with war. The world is constantly in some kind of battle; governments continually fund military, weapons and defense, development; Leaders are always looking for opportunities to gain powerful allies through treaties. War is also still the key thought of a leader because some leaders must fight for their position and must kill off their opposition and some leaders must win an election and must present their opponents as less worthy for the position. One may say that politics is war and that politicians are obsessed with it. Politicians must keep up their appearances, practice their speeches and poise, and find incriminating facts about their rivals.
One other thought, how often to politicians appear to be trustworthy and generous when running for office and then never take a stand on certain issues or pass burdensome tax laws on the people. What is most important is for a person to seem like the perfect candidate because it is difficult to take someone out of office simply because the public is unhappy with how he has kept his promises.
The Prince
I found Niccolo Machiavelli’s article, “The Qualities of the Prince” to be very interesting. His main point was on war and some of his other ideas go along with war. Machiavelli states that a prince should be all about “war, its institutions, and its discipline” to be a good leader. A prince should also be training constantly if he is not in a state of war. Machiavelli said there were two ways to train, “One by action, the by the mind.” To train by action, the prince should go out hunting and accustom his body to the hardships that nature can cause. A prince should also “learn the nature of the terrain, and know how mountains slope, how valleys open, how plains lie, and understand the nature of rivers and swamps.” When a prince knows many different terrains he can better defend his land and he can also adapt to other terrains he hasn’t seen yet. Then to train the mind a prince should read history and study great man and how they conducted themselves in wars. The prince should also understand their victories and defeats in those wars.
Machiavelli’s other points tie into war. One of his points dealt with being feared more then loved. One way to do this is to have a strong army. Other provinces won’t want to invade if they know they can’t win and the prince’s own people will not try anything either knowing the consequences. Another idea Machiavelli mentioned was don’t deprive your own people, plunder from others. The only way to plunder from others is to have a strong military. You need a lot of force to take from another province.
I agree with Machiavelli’s main point on having a strong military, however, it would not work as well today. Back then, a strong military was necessary for survival. Any province could be attacked without warning or if a province’s resources were declining then they would be forced to plunder from others. In today’s time, a strong military is still essential to defend your country; however, it is not used to plunder other countries daily. The president doesn’t go out hunting and learning the landscapes to better his military to gain power from the people. He tries to help the people directly and provide them their rights and freedoms to stay in power. Also, today’s presidents want to be loved by their people not feared. If people were afraid of the president, then the president would lose his power.
I found the overall article interesting because the way things have changed over the last 400-500 years. Instead of providing a strong military to gain power and respect from the people like princes did, presidents now try to provide equal rights and opportunities to the people to stay in power. A president’s power is limited while a prince’s power can last a long time if he is good at war and perceived as a great leader by his people. Also the aspect of plundering is different. A province would plunder from another province if they wanted to and had a good army, but countries nowadays trade when they need something from another country. Imagine if there was a war between two countries every time they need something. The world would be chaos.
Machiavelli’s other points tie into war. One of his points dealt with being feared more then loved. One way to do this is to have a strong army. Other provinces won’t want to invade if they know they can’t win and the prince’s own people will not try anything either knowing the consequences. Another idea Machiavelli mentioned was don’t deprive your own people, plunder from others. The only way to plunder from others is to have a strong military. You need a lot of force to take from another province.
I agree with Machiavelli’s main point on having a strong military, however, it would not work as well today. Back then, a strong military was necessary for survival. Any province could be attacked without warning or if a province’s resources were declining then they would be forced to plunder from others. In today’s time, a strong military is still essential to defend your country; however, it is not used to plunder other countries daily. The president doesn’t go out hunting and learning the landscapes to better his military to gain power from the people. He tries to help the people directly and provide them their rights and freedoms to stay in power. Also, today’s presidents want to be loved by their people not feared. If people were afraid of the president, then the president would lose his power.
I found the overall article interesting because the way things have changed over the last 400-500 years. Instead of providing a strong military to gain power and respect from the people like princes did, presidents now try to provide equal rights and opportunities to the people to stay in power. A president’s power is limited while a prince’s power can last a long time if he is good at war and perceived as a great leader by his people. Also the aspect of plundering is different. A province would plunder from another province if they wanted to and had a good army, but countries nowadays trade when they need something from another country. Imagine if there was a war between two countries every time they need something. The world would be chaos.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
"Machiavellian" Leaders
As I was reading Machiavelli, I was thinking about whether it would be possible for leaders in our country to follow his advice. While Machiavelli’s argument made sense for a prince, it would be hard to implement his ideas into our society. Our government is fundamentally different from the city states of 16th century Italy. Our leaders do not gain control through war. This makes some parts of Machiavelli’s argument much less relevant. For instance, Machiavelli says that a prince must not “have any profession aside from war, its institution, and its discipline.” Today, the president must be concerned with many other things. A president needs to understand war, but he does not need to fight wars to gain or keep power. Machiavelli also says that it is better for a leader to be feared than loved. That may be true when power is a result of war and rebellion, but not in a democracy. If a politician does nothing but frighten or threaten people, it is unlikely that he or she will get elected.
Aside from this, I think that a leader in our country could strive to be what Machiavelli recommends in the section “How a Prince Should Keep His Word.” I know I’ve read the seen “Machiavellian” used to describe certain policies or actions. “Machiavellian” is defined as, “cunning and unscrupulous, using clever trickery, amoral methods, and expediency to achieve a desired goal, especially in politics.” It’s not unreasonable to think that politician today could do that. After all, as Machiavelli says, it is only necessary to appear merciful, faithful, humane, and religious. He believes that people are easily deceived and will forget when leaders lie and manipulate.
The only problem with this is that today our leaders receive so much media attention. If a leader has lied to the public, the media will probably not let you forget. Our president is constantly under public scrutiny. If he even mispronounces a word in a speech, it could be all over the internet. If he lied or manipulated people and it was found out, it would be everywhere in the news and newspapers. Every little bit of information we find out about people affects our perception of them. In Machiavelli’s time, people would know about their prince mostly by word of mouth. Because of this, they would probably only hear about negative things that would potentially result in serious problems for the people. It seems that the media would make it more difficult for leaders to lie and manipulate and not be “found out.” A president could be a less little than merciful, faithful, etc, but not much worse. It seems like somehow people would know if the president was a great hypocrite and liar. Aren’t there are too many people involved in the government and media for a leader to continually deceive everyone? I wouldn’t say it’s impossible—but it certainly seems difficult. Or maybe I’d just prefer not to be as cynical as Machiavelli.
Aside from this, I think that a leader in our country could strive to be what Machiavelli recommends in the section “How a Prince Should Keep His Word.” I know I’ve read the seen “Machiavellian” used to describe certain policies or actions. “Machiavellian” is defined as, “cunning and unscrupulous, using clever trickery, amoral methods, and expediency to achieve a desired goal, especially in politics.” It’s not unreasonable to think that politician today could do that. After all, as Machiavelli says, it is only necessary to appear merciful, faithful, humane, and religious. He believes that people are easily deceived and will forget when leaders lie and manipulate.
The only problem with this is that today our leaders receive so much media attention. If a leader has lied to the public, the media will probably not let you forget. Our president is constantly under public scrutiny. If he even mispronounces a word in a speech, it could be all over the internet. If he lied or manipulated people and it was found out, it would be everywhere in the news and newspapers. Every little bit of information we find out about people affects our perception of them. In Machiavelli’s time, people would know about their prince mostly by word of mouth. Because of this, they would probably only hear about negative things that would potentially result in serious problems for the people. It seems that the media would make it more difficult for leaders to lie and manipulate and not be “found out.” A president could be a less little than merciful, faithful, etc, but not much worse. It seems like somehow people would know if the president was a great hypocrite and liar. Aren’t there are too many people involved in the government and media for a leader to continually deceive everyone? I wouldn’t say it’s impossible—but it certainly seems difficult. Or maybe I’d just prefer not to be as cynical as Machiavelli.
Monday, February 12, 2007
CAPPS II
Here is some information about CAPPS II, which I mentioned in class today. The following quote is from this website. The ACLU also has good information about the program, which was shut down in 2004 and replaced with a similar program.
First of all, this system doesn't make us any safer and it is a complete breach of privacy since they are ranking people based off of information that is never made public, information that may not even be accurate.
The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has announced plans to implement
CAPPS II, a controversial passenger profiling and surveillance system that would
require you to give your birth date, home phone number, and home address before
you can board a U.S. flight. Under CAPPS II, travel authorities would check
these and other personal details against the information collected in government
and commercial databases, then "tag" you with a color-coded score indicating the
level of security risk that you appear to pose. Based on your assigned
color/score, you could be detained, interrogated or made subject to additional
searches. If you are tagged with the wrong color/score, you could be
prohibited from flying.
First of all, this system doesn't make us any safer and it is a complete breach of privacy since they are ranking people based off of information that is never made public, information that may not even be accurate.
Last Friday's Discussion
*The capability to an education*
One thing we were talking about last Friday was the capability of receiving an education. A few questions asked were would we be less human without one and how effective is our education system? When we were discussing this it made me think of the movie Pursuit of Happyness. In the movie Will Smith tells his son to never let anyone tell him he can't be something he wants to be. I feel an education is important but it is one's decision whether to receive it. In another part of the movie Will Smith is walking down the street and sees people walk out of a stock brokerage building and they look happy and wealthy. He asks how he can get a job there and the guy says you have to be good with people and numbers. He then goes on to apply and completes a long drawn out process to receive the job. However, my point here is the highest education he had was his high school diploma. He was a smart man but he didn't have the college degree to show it. Therefore, I think people can do what they want with their life with or without an education, but they should definitely have the "capability" to receive a good education. It is up to them however, to take that opportunity. If someone wants to be something or achieve a certain goal all they really need in the mind frame to do so.
*Justice*
Laura asked what every one's definition of justice was so I thought I would share what I think it is. I think justice is everyone having the right to live a good life with all the basic needs and being able to do as they please as long as it is obeying the laws made by the government. If one chooses to work harder so they can have the material things as well they should be free to do so. I also feel the government should allow people their freedom but as the same time keep the area safe. If one breaks a law they should be punished but the punishment should be equivalent to the crime committed.
One thing we were talking about last Friday was the capability of receiving an education. A few questions asked were would we be less human without one and how effective is our education system? When we were discussing this it made me think of the movie Pursuit of Happyness. In the movie Will Smith tells his son to never let anyone tell him he can't be something he wants to be. I feel an education is important but it is one's decision whether to receive it. In another part of the movie Will Smith is walking down the street and sees people walk out of a stock brokerage building and they look happy and wealthy. He asks how he can get a job there and the guy says you have to be good with people and numbers. He then goes on to apply and completes a long drawn out process to receive the job. However, my point here is the highest education he had was his high school diploma. He was a smart man but he didn't have the college degree to show it. Therefore, I think people can do what they want with their life with or without an education, but they should definitely have the "capability" to receive a good education. It is up to them however, to take that opportunity. If someone wants to be something or achieve a certain goal all they really need in the mind frame to do so.
*Justice*
Laura asked what every one's definition of justice was so I thought I would share what I think it is. I think justice is everyone having the right to live a good life with all the basic needs and being able to do as they please as long as it is obeying the laws made by the government. If one chooses to work harder so they can have the material things as well they should be free to do so. I also feel the government should allow people their freedom but as the same time keep the area safe. If one breaks a law they should be punished but the punishment should be equivalent to the crime committed.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
ok i realize that this is a little late, but this is in response to laura's (??? i think ???) question on what everyone else's definition of justice is and then chad having compared it to pornography.
This comment got me thinking about an extremely funny, well it was at the time, instance in a class where we were studying the 20's in a class... The teacher was discussing how fashion was revolutionized and everything and how women were suddenly flashing their ankles all over the place. A classmate declared it to be "amish porn." I realize that that could be terribly politically incorrect and everything but just stay with me here. I'm telling this story because chad said you know if its justice, kinda like if you know something is pornography. For example, in the memoirs of a geisha clip that we watched, the teacher told the girl to flash her wrist at the customers in order to give them a treat... at the time and in that culture, a wrist may have been the equivalent of tara reid's nipple slip at some award show... pretty shocking, but basically, no one really thought about it after a week... the pornography issue is different to everyone, dependent on culture and times and public opinion. This is exactly like justice... it's not clear cut, you never really can decide preset what is just and what isn't.
In some countries, it's perfectly fine for a man to get his hands chopped off for stealing whereas another finds it appalling and makes the man do community service. It all depends on the situation... the law may say that no one is allowed to have an abortion, but what happens when a woman is raped, is going to randomly be pregnant with quintuplets and at birth, the mother will die, no question... then is it ok for the mother to get an abortion? (Ok that was a bit extreme, but tryin to make a point here...) So in response to the question, there is no clear cut definition of justice for me, its all gray, not black and white. You can't pre-conceive everything. I know that laws do that, but that's what the courts are for... For murder, one gets life imprisonment, but when it's in self-defense, then they're ok even tho they technically killed someone. There's always an exception to the rule, even though there shouldn't be sometimes, such as where rapists and murderers go to jail for 2 months then get out on probation. And maybe some people believe that they have learned their lesson in that short amount of time and others believe that there are better things to do than jail. But that just shows that there is no clear cut definition of justice... there is an overall, broad sense of decency and what is right and wrong, but there is always that black sheep that thinks killing is ok, or that rape is ok or that stealing is ok. But most people will probably tell you that murder is wrong and that rape is wrong... but that is the general consensus. There is always a gray area where people are going to argue about it and where it is very hard to make a decision on it...
This comment got me thinking about an extremely funny, well it was at the time, instance in a class where we were studying the 20's in a class... The teacher was discussing how fashion was revolutionized and everything and how women were suddenly flashing their ankles all over the place. A classmate declared it to be "amish porn." I realize that that could be terribly politically incorrect and everything but just stay with me here. I'm telling this story because chad said you know if its justice, kinda like if you know something is pornography. For example, in the memoirs of a geisha clip that we watched, the teacher told the girl to flash her wrist at the customers in order to give them a treat... at the time and in that culture, a wrist may have been the equivalent of tara reid's nipple slip at some award show... pretty shocking, but basically, no one really thought about it after a week... the pornography issue is different to everyone, dependent on culture and times and public opinion. This is exactly like justice... it's not clear cut, you never really can decide preset what is just and what isn't.
In some countries, it's perfectly fine for a man to get his hands chopped off for stealing whereas another finds it appalling and makes the man do community service. It all depends on the situation... the law may say that no one is allowed to have an abortion, but what happens when a woman is raped, is going to randomly be pregnant with quintuplets and at birth, the mother will die, no question... then is it ok for the mother to get an abortion? (Ok that was a bit extreme, but tryin to make a point here...) So in response to the question, there is no clear cut definition of justice for me, its all gray, not black and white. You can't pre-conceive everything. I know that laws do that, but that's what the courts are for... For murder, one gets life imprisonment, but when it's in self-defense, then they're ok even tho they technically killed someone. There's always an exception to the rule, even though there shouldn't be sometimes, such as where rapists and murderers go to jail for 2 months then get out on probation. And maybe some people believe that they have learned their lesson in that short amount of time and others believe that there are better things to do than jail. But that just shows that there is no clear cut definition of justice... there is an overall, broad sense of decency and what is right and wrong, but there is always that black sheep that thinks killing is ok, or that rape is ok or that stealing is ok. But most people will probably tell you that murder is wrong and that rape is wrong... but that is the general consensus. There is always a gray area where people are going to argue about it and where it is very hard to make a decision on it...
Quote of the Week
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
-Buddha
-Buddha
Friday, February 9, 2007
last friday...
Following up with a few main points that both Kate and Chad made today in class. I would like to discuss sweatshops within the world. Not only within the United States (which I feel is unacceptable) but also within third world countries. As many of us know, almost all of our clothing items are made from sweatshop laborers. It is a rare find if we find pieces made within the country. There are many reasons for this continuing use of sweatshops. And the main reason includes Chad’s question in class, would we be willing to sacrifice items for the costs of clothing. The sacrifice would include small things like a new pair of shoes that are not necessary, or a meal at Olive Garden but it would also include very large items and luxuries. Would we be willing to sacrifice everyday luxuries that we hardly think twice about for an item of clothing made in the united states These sacrifices would be necessary to make because of the potential cost of American made items (assuming the worker would be paid at least minimum wage). For example, last week I bought a new pair of jeans from AE. The jeans costs me approximately $42.00, I know that fair paid laborers did not make these jeans. If fair paid laborers made them, I am assuming that they would at least cost me three times as much. Taking into consideration the minimum wage of $6.85 an hour, with the costs of factory fees (including electricity, heating, and water) and the profit margin for the company.
Though the point I am making may seem to be redundant and slightly harsh, it is something to take into consideration before one discusses sweatshops. I am not saying that sweatshop labor is acceptable, and the conditions are terrible but the economy would be largely affected (both the economy within the united states and the economies of countries that harbor sweat shops). The United States economy would be affected through like dominos; the cost of necessary items would increase, then the minimum wage would need to increase, and possibly the cost of living would also increase.
Though the sweatshops within third world countries are a terrible source of income, it is a source of income. Many people survive off of selling their crops or goods, women may weave within the small village, but other then agriculture a source of income is minimal. It is a very sad, but true statement. The sweatshops provide money for these families and citizens of third world countries. If the sweatshop were not prevalent, where would the income come from? Though sweatshops do provide an income and job for many citizens, the conditions do need to be improved.
Though the point I am making may seem to be redundant and slightly harsh, it is something to take into consideration before one discusses sweatshops. I am not saying that sweatshop labor is acceptable, and the conditions are terrible but the economy would be largely affected (both the economy within the united states and the economies of countries that harbor sweat shops). The United States economy would be affected through like dominos; the cost of necessary items would increase, then the minimum wage would need to increase, and possibly the cost of living would also increase.
Though the sweatshops within third world countries are a terrible source of income, it is a source of income. Many people survive off of selling their crops or goods, women may weave within the small village, but other then agriculture a source of income is minimal. It is a very sad, but true statement. The sweatshops provide money for these families and citizens of third world countries. If the sweatshop were not prevalent, where would the income come from? Though sweatshops do provide an income and job for many citizens, the conditions do need to be improved.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
response to kims poem
This poem is describes what can happen when unjustness is prevalent within an area. This specific area was a town but as we all know it’s prevalent within homes, local governments, towns, states, countries, counties, nations, providences, virtually injustice is everywhere. "First the alien, then the Jew... I did no more than you let me do."
This line specifically spoke to me because it describes the strength needed for the individual who is standing up against injustice. As we all know it is very hard to stand up against something that we know is wrong. It’s much easer said then it is done, especially if we are alone. Hopefully we all try, but I have learned it is one of the hardest things in life.
What if a person does not have the same beliefs that I hold? Should I take that into consideration while injustice is occurring? For example, the prejudice against Middle Eastern women? Their hair must be covered, they are not allowed to work at specific job sites, not allowed to wear specific clothing, and even in the mosque they must pray in a separate section from the men. Their lifestyle is rooted in those beliefs, is it wrong? Is it an injustice? Though I may feel that it is prejudice against women, the women of the culture may strongly disagree. When do we draw the line, of imposing our beliefs to someone else? Do we even draw a line at all?
Another example a little closer to home, it may be cliché but it was a personal experience and it will always remain in my mind. The other month, it was a Wednesday night approximately 6:00 pm; I was working at my previous job (I quit after this experience) Rite Aid Pharmacy. I was a Pharmaceutical Technician. This tall, beautiful, professional-looking, young woman walked in and asked me for the Plan B pill. At first I was confused because I had never sold such a pill before over-the-counter, she noticed my confusion and said “It’s the 72 hour/morning after pill”. Suddenly it clicked, “oh, hold on, let me ask the pharmacist…” I panicked. I didn’t know what to do; here I am in the position to sell a drug that does something that I am strongly against. Injustice was occurring before my eyes, and I was apart of it. Am I using the excuse that selling the drug was apart of my “duties”, technically it was. I could have refused to sell it, but at that point someone else within the pharmacy would’ve sold it to her. I would’ve passed my burden onto someone else. So there I stood, as she walked out with the pill in her hand, praying that there was not a baby inside of her.
I want to reiterate that all of you may not have the same beliefs as me, and you may feel that the story was stupid because as a woman she has the choice and I shouldn’t care. But, when is the point that I say her decision and the government (for legalizing abortion and the Plan B pill) are wrong? And I am right.
This line specifically spoke to me because it describes the strength needed for the individual who is standing up against injustice. As we all know it is very hard to stand up against something that we know is wrong. It’s much easer said then it is done, especially if we are alone. Hopefully we all try, but I have learned it is one of the hardest things in life.
What if a person does not have the same beliefs that I hold? Should I take that into consideration while injustice is occurring? For example, the prejudice against Middle Eastern women? Their hair must be covered, they are not allowed to work at specific job sites, not allowed to wear specific clothing, and even in the mosque they must pray in a separate section from the men. Their lifestyle is rooted in those beliefs, is it wrong? Is it an injustice? Though I may feel that it is prejudice against women, the women of the culture may strongly disagree. When do we draw the line, of imposing our beliefs to someone else? Do we even draw a line at all?
Another example a little closer to home, it may be cliché but it was a personal experience and it will always remain in my mind. The other month, it was a Wednesday night approximately 6:00 pm; I was working at my previous job (I quit after this experience) Rite Aid Pharmacy. I was a Pharmaceutical Technician. This tall, beautiful, professional-looking, young woman walked in and asked me for the Plan B pill. At first I was confused because I had never sold such a pill before over-the-counter, she noticed my confusion and said “It’s the 72 hour/morning after pill”. Suddenly it clicked, “oh, hold on, let me ask the pharmacist…” I panicked. I didn’t know what to do; here I am in the position to sell a drug that does something that I am strongly against. Injustice was occurring before my eyes, and I was apart of it. Am I using the excuse that selling the drug was apart of my “duties”, technically it was. I could have refused to sell it, but at that point someone else within the pharmacy would’ve sold it to her. I would’ve passed my burden onto someone else. So there I stood, as she walked out with the pill in her hand, praying that there was not a baby inside of her.
I want to reiterate that all of you may not have the same beliefs as me, and you may feel that the story was stupid because as a woman she has the choice and I shouldn’t care. But, when is the point that I say her decision and the government (for legalizing abortion and the Plan B pill) are wrong? And I am right.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Pelosi, Cady-Stanton, & Nussbaum
After reading and discussing Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s “Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions,” I find it interesting that Stanton had to fight the Seneca Falls Convention delegates tooth and nail over the issue of voting rights. Stanton’s basic idea/theme was that in order for equality to be achieved for both sexes, women should be able to elect legislators who would be favorable to their ideas and give them representation in the halls of the United States Congress. Stanton stated: “He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice” (paragraph 5). The fact that women did not achieve the right to vote for president until the election of 1920 means that presidents from Washington to Wilson were elected solely by males…and only white males until 1870. However, considering women did achieve the right to vote in the early 20th century, did not necessarily mean that women were given a much privilege in the legislative process. As Martha Nussbaum stated in her list of “human rights,” all individuals should have the right of affiliation, which she explained as the right for all to have the ability to be treated as an equal and be ranked just as valuable as others (paragraph 12).
While women have served as governors, representatives, and senators, they have not always had much sway or have been treated as equals, since they did not hold the keys to the high ranking positions like Speaker of the House, majority/minority leader positions, and president or vice president. Furthermore, many women politicians have not been helped by the media and have been mocked by pundits like Rush Limbaugh (“Femi-Nazis”) for their views and have been called “power-hungry” or “too opinionated.” Hillary Clinton was attacked for advocating universal healthcare in her husband’s administration and the new Speaker of the House, first female to hold the position, Nancy Pelosi, was called a “San Francisco Liberal” after the 2006 elections by those pundits like Limbaugh, which is then usually repeated by news reporters and anchors. However, when Pelosi took charge this past January, she indirectly attacked the notion that feminists are extreme liberals or out of touch with mainstream America in her “acceptance” speech:
Pelosi was clearly referencing the feminist movement and the fact that women have been working for equality and the ability to voice their concerns in the public arena just as Elizabeth Cady Stanton did at the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848. Pelosi defined feminism in her own terms, “That all men and women are created equal,” and put the correct connotation on the term…that feminism is not anything scary, but simply means equality…equality that many, not just women, have fought for in the United States.
While women have served as governors, representatives, and senators, they have not always had much sway or have been treated as equals, since they did not hold the keys to the high ranking positions like Speaker of the House, majority/minority leader positions, and president or vice president. Furthermore, many women politicians have not been helped by the media and have been mocked by pundits like Rush Limbaugh (“Femi-Nazis”) for their views and have been called “power-hungry” or “too opinionated.” Hillary Clinton was attacked for advocating universal healthcare in her husband’s administration and the new Speaker of the House, first female to hold the position, Nancy Pelosi, was called a “San Francisco Liberal” after the 2006 elections by those pundits like Limbaugh, which is then usually repeated by news reporters and anchors. However, when Pelosi took charge this past January, she indirectly attacked the notion that feminists are extreme liberals or out of touch with mainstream America in her “acceptance” speech:
"This is a historic moment - for the Congress, and for the women of this country. It is a moment for which we have waited more than 200 years. Never losing faith, we waited through the many years of struggle to achieve our rights. But women weren't just waiting; women were working. Never losing faith, we worked to redeem the promise of America, that all men and women are created equal. For our daughters and granddaughters, today, we have broken the marble ceiling."
Pelosi was clearly referencing the feminist movement and the fact that women have been working for equality and the ability to voice their concerns in the public arena just as Elizabeth Cady Stanton did at the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848. Pelosi defined feminism in her own terms, “That all men and women are created equal,” and put the correct connotation on the term…that feminism is not anything scary, but simply means equality…equality that many, not just women, have fought for in the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)